Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Deleted Comments Discussion
Comments transferred from the Police Assault on the Drum Circle thread around the issue of censorship on indymedia can be found here. Hopefully the discussion will continue, and folks will continue to address the important Public Assembly issue in words and actions on the other thread.
This new thread is an attempt to channel the discussion of indymedia comment deletion (or censorship as critics claim) and allow to procede without interfering with the main topic of the prior thread: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/16/18472946.php
I hope folks can continue their discussion the reality of indybay.org/santacruz publishing and the concerns of writers here whose posts are deleted and/or who want to read deleted posts. I think it's an important discussion, apart from the discussion of police removal of public assemblies (e.g. Drum circle, Food Not Bombs, homeless from parking lots) and particular strategies to preserve the right to public assembly next Wednesday.
Hence I have transferred only comments that refer to the censorship issue and deleted comments that refer to the drum issue. I've also deleted sections of comments that mainly pertain to the police versus public assembly issue. They can still be viewed (hopefully) on the original website.
I urge indybay.org/santacruz monitors to be tolerant of this thread. Blowing off steam and hard criticism can both be positive--assuming the comments aren't commercial span, false defamation, or hate speech per se. It's even better if the discussion doesn't interfere with the main point of another thread.
Deleting negative vibes? Lets Stop the Censorship
by Tim Rumford
( sleepisarght [at] live.com ) Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 3:54 PM
"oops. The first sentence there was directed towards some jerk criticizing hippies with drums, but we were able to delete his negative vibes."
dear CP and others. It sounds as if a comments was deleted. CP this is not directed to you, just using your remark to make a point.
It may seem all good when a negative persons comments are deleted, but for those of us who use this service and are against Censorship, worry when comments are deleted. In the past they were hidden so you could view them if you wanted. Now they just get censored, not just negative comments but MANY opposing voices are deleted, censored. We need to hear from those that disagree, they need the same amount of free speech we have.
Even the most popular writers here have had posts and comments censored when they go against an indybay agenda. Sometimes it may be NYC indybay, or other parts, but Santa Cruz indybay censors many comments making many posts what they think is balanced or... whatever.
My point is we don't want to preach to the choir. The hippie hating drum circle clown is exactly who we want to reach right? In order to enact change, we have to be able to change minds. And we may at times need our minds changed, were not perfect.
Censorship should be used for spam only, people selling Viagra or promoting sales of anything -- but dissenting comments must stand! We can no longer allow Indybay to decide who gets deleted. It makes no sense accept to make Indybay look better or promote an agenda. This is sleazy stuff that I am opposed to in all forms. If we want a nice chat with people who agree with us, then lets censor everyone who disagrees instead of those who simply piss off an indbay editor or their particular world view. If I write an article or post. I want to hear from those that disagree. Largely we do, but I have 100's of saved deleted comments from the last year. Many that were simply disagreeing. This is a free country and we are trying to preserve what few rights we still have. In order to do that we need to stand up for anyone who wants a voice, if you agree or not.
....
Tim Rumford
Posted at 3:45pm Jan 17th 2008.
http://www.humanityforhomeless.blogspot.com
Thanks, Tim
by abc
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 4:27 PM
..for your well written comment about the censorship here. I've been a victim of it several times. Just wanted to acknowledge your post, and agree with it, before it's removed which it most likely will be shortly.
.....
Censorship? No, an Editorial Policy
by this isn't a "free speech" site, sorry folks
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 6:31 PM
"Censorship should be used for spam only, people selling Viagra or promoting sales of anything -- but dissenting comments must stand!"
Dissenting comments do stand, but comments calling people stupid hippies will not. Indybay has an editorial policy. Read that last sentence again.
SF Bay Area Indymedia Editorial Policy
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/08/04/1395001.php
About Us
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/12/08/16643971.php
p.s. It is not your "right" to publish on Indymedia. Indymedia does grant or take anyway rights from people. We struggle together.
Please Don't Feed the Trolls
by Los Angeles IMC
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 7:23 PM
Please Don't Feed the Trolls : Wikipedia defines an Internet Troll as: "either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person." Los Angeles IMC strives to provide both a grassroots media resource as well as a forum for people to contribute to a meaningful discussion about local issues. Please, when posting comments, be respectful of others and ignore those trying to interrupt or discourage meaningful discourse. Thank you.
Reasonable Request
by Robert Norse
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 8:53 PM
As I've said repeatedly (and sincerely), I much appreciate indybay's coverage of undercovered stories (and the forum it allows me).
However I believe it would give readers more confidence and the website more credibility if indybay censors specified the particular reason a post is removed (commercial, hatespeech, personal attack, etc.).
I find it particularly galling when a poster finds her comment removed, requests to know why, and receives silence. Or snide anonymous comments from people who seem to be indybay monitors.
Respect should run both ways. If indybay chooses to censor, it should indicate as a matter of course--even if only by a policy number--what policy is being violated. What say ye, indybay?
Comments on Comments
by Sus scrofa domestica
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 11:21 PM
Santa Cruz Indymedia means a lot of different things to a lot of different people and we all have visions of how it should be. Indymedia volunteers, anonymous and otherwise, spend a great deal of time trying to maintain this website and others. Indybay is a very good resource and may appear to be a professional website, but it isn't. It is not fair to make demands from a small group of volunteers. Some people might find aspects of Indymedia particularly galling, but deriding Indymedia volunteers in comments is not encouraging, particularly when the article, promoted by the volunteers being ridiculed, is about Drummers Being Hassled at Farmer's Market.
When an Indymedia website volunteer either makes a mistake or interprets a comment to be a "flame" or "troll baiting," then the comment gets hidden. Comments on Indymedia that appear to be made to entice other people into angry or fruitless responses serve to undermine the goals and principles of Indymedia. There is not a secret formula or a perfect recipe for deciding when somebody is trying to engage in a genuine dialogue and when someone is trying to entice other people into angry or fruitless responses.
You can catch more flies with honey, which means it is better to engage people in productive ways. Some things can be improved while others need to be more or less accepted for the way they are. Know your enemies, they ain't your local Indymedia volunteers. Rest assured that volunteers are doing their best to maintain this website based on Indybay policies and principles.
....
RE: Comments on Comments
by nr5667
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 1:44 AM
"When an Indymedia website volunteer either makes a mistake or interprets a comment to be a "flame" or "troll baiting," then the comment gets hidden. Comments on Indymedia that appear to be made to entice other people into angry or fruitless responses serve to undermine the goals and principles of Indymedia. There is not a secret formula or a perfect recipe for deciding when somebody is trying to engage in a genuine dialogue and when someone is trying to entice other people into angry or fruitless responses."
Perhaps there should be, as the bias displayed by those with moderating authority is blatant. If Indymedia wants to be considered as something other than a mouthpiece for certain idealogies, as it stands, when Indymedia touts itself as "a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth..." It should endeavor to be such, as it stands, the post pmilitant typifies the sort of invective and rhetoric that generally remains unmolested while posts that run contrary to prevailing views (no matter how civil) seem to disappear without a trace.
It is why indymedia appeals to a small minority, and garners limited respect.
to nr5667
by sincere curiosity
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 2:39 AM
why do you read indymedia?
People who disagree with me are more interesting...
by nr5667
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 3:42 AM
I enjoy listening to all points of view... I don't disagree with all that is posted on indymedia. I do find it sad that people don't care to learn about and understand opposing views anymore... To be crude, if the purpose is simply a mental circle jerk, what's the point? I suppose that's just the way politics have been going in America... People have become insular, not caring to interact with people who might disagree...
I notice on websites that lean left, I'm called a fascist, on websites that lean right, I'm called a communist... Perhaps people who post on these websites are just part of a fringe too far gone to engage in salient conversation with.
running website
by leni
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 8:14 AM
Several people here might have been around, or at least were active, at the Seattle WTO in Nov '99 when indymedia was founded. At the time, nobody had a blog, and personal websites were coded in simple html.
At this point, nearly everyone using original indymedia shared a true 'free speech' vision, and there were debates over whether taking out racist material was worthwhile, because someone could say that it is important for the community to realize that racists exist etc.
Since this era, nearly all the actual indymedia volunteers have strongly come to accept the need for some moderation, due to the physical factors of the computer medium. Basically, it is too easy for enemies who loathe indymedia to press 'publish' over and over again, and to write automated robot scripts to continuously upload pornographic pictures and jibberish phrases. There were certain famous trolls such as 'smashtheleft' who spent several years writing comments nearly 16 hours a day, and posting home addresses of activists he'd researched in this area. Clearly this needs to be blocked. Probably at times, you have seen the 'other newswire' section get filled with junk. The collective spent a long time negotiating with news.google to have indybay added to their crawl, by screening the 'local' section for profane material. This brings up hits to the site quite a bit
Go to one of the volunteer meetings. They hold them in rotating cities in the region. I was really floored when I saw them open the website in administrator mode, and it was apparent that antagonists come to crap all over the newswire, taking dumps so to speak, and how the volunteers have set up almost a 24 hour schedule to clean it up before most readers see it. Sometimes at 2-6am there is a break. They set up special handheld computer programs to assist in rapidly deleting bot scripts. There is no IP logging here, but there is temporary recognition of people posting porn. By the way, there aren't that many new volunteers during a particular year.
That said, some people (particularly the Santa Cruz sub-site) want to use the newswire as a discussion forum. I don't know of a comparable forum that isn't a blog of a group of friends. The decision to remove the 'latest comments' list deemphasized this aspect of the site, but it is still an important function. It's not good if legitimate users have their valid voice deleted, but it seems like comments can easily be mixed in with spam attacks.
Ok lets get back on topic
by Tim Rumford
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 11:13 AM
Ok I brought up the censorship issue, due to seeing that a comment was deleted, but lets get back on topic and if people are interested start a post on censorship on Indbay and continue the dialog there. Just a thought. We need to get on topic and ready for Wed.
Thanks
Tim Rumford
http://www.humanityforhomeless.blogspot.com
I thought the topic was relevant...
by treesit_4ever
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 12:06 PM
"Ok I brought up the censorship issue, due to seeing that a c"
-No, it was an important thing to bring up, Tim, and I'm glad the Indybay editors left it up....
I hope folks can continue their discussion the reality of indybay.org/santacruz publishing and the concerns of writers here whose posts are deleted and/or who want to read deleted posts. I think it's an important discussion, apart from the discussion of police removal of public assemblies (e.g. Drum circle, Food Not Bombs, homeless from parking lots) and particular strategies to preserve the right to public assembly next Wednesday.
Hence I have transferred only comments that refer to the censorship issue and deleted comments that refer to the drum issue. I've also deleted sections of comments that mainly pertain to the police versus public assembly issue. They can still be viewed (hopefully) on the original website.
I urge indybay.org/santacruz monitors to be tolerant of this thread. Blowing off steam and hard criticism can both be positive--assuming the comments aren't commercial span, false defamation, or hate speech per se. It's even better if the discussion doesn't interfere with the main point of another thread.
Deleting negative vibes? Lets Stop the Censorship
by Tim Rumford
( sleepisarght [at] live.com ) Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 3:54 PM
"oops. The first sentence there was directed towards some jerk criticizing hippies with drums, but we were able to delete his negative vibes."
dear CP and others. It sounds as if a comments was deleted. CP this is not directed to you, just using your remark to make a point.
It may seem all good when a negative persons comments are deleted, but for those of us who use this service and are against Censorship, worry when comments are deleted. In the past they were hidden so you could view them if you wanted. Now they just get censored, not just negative comments but MANY opposing voices are deleted, censored. We need to hear from those that disagree, they need the same amount of free speech we have.
Even the most popular writers here have had posts and comments censored when they go against an indybay agenda. Sometimes it may be NYC indybay, or other parts, but Santa Cruz indybay censors many comments making many posts what they think is balanced or... whatever.
My point is we don't want to preach to the choir. The hippie hating drum circle clown is exactly who we want to reach right? In order to enact change, we have to be able to change minds. And we may at times need our minds changed, were not perfect.
Censorship should be used for spam only, people selling Viagra or promoting sales of anything -- but dissenting comments must stand! We can no longer allow Indybay to decide who gets deleted. It makes no sense accept to make Indybay look better or promote an agenda. This is sleazy stuff that I am opposed to in all forms. If we want a nice chat with people who agree with us, then lets censor everyone who disagrees instead of those who simply piss off an indbay editor or their particular world view. If I write an article or post. I want to hear from those that disagree. Largely we do, but I have 100's of saved deleted comments from the last year. Many that were simply disagreeing. This is a free country and we are trying to preserve what few rights we still have. In order to do that we need to stand up for anyone who wants a voice, if you agree or not.
....
Tim Rumford
Posted at 3:45pm Jan 17th 2008.
http://www.humanityforhomeless.blogspot.com
Thanks, Tim
by abc
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 4:27 PM
..for your well written comment about the censorship here. I've been a victim of it several times. Just wanted to acknowledge your post, and agree with it, before it's removed which it most likely will be shortly.
.....
Censorship? No, an Editorial Policy
by this isn't a "free speech" site, sorry folks
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 6:31 PM
"Censorship should be used for spam only, people selling Viagra or promoting sales of anything -- but dissenting comments must stand!"
Dissenting comments do stand, but comments calling people stupid hippies will not. Indybay has an editorial policy. Read that last sentence again.
SF Bay Area Indymedia Editorial Policy
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/08/04/1395001.php
About Us
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/12/08/16643971.php
p.s. It is not your "right" to publish on Indymedia. Indymedia does grant or take anyway rights from people. We struggle together.
Please Don't Feed the Trolls
by Los Angeles IMC
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 7:23 PM
Please Don't Feed the Trolls : Wikipedia defines an Internet Troll as: "either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person." Los Angeles IMC strives to provide both a grassroots media resource as well as a forum for people to contribute to a meaningful discussion about local issues. Please, when posting comments, be respectful of others and ignore those trying to interrupt or discourage meaningful discourse. Thank you.
Reasonable Request
by Robert Norse
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 8:53 PM
As I've said repeatedly (and sincerely), I much appreciate indybay's coverage of undercovered stories (and the forum it allows me).
However I believe it would give readers more confidence and the website more credibility if indybay censors specified the particular reason a post is removed (commercial, hatespeech, personal attack, etc.).
I find it particularly galling when a poster finds her comment removed, requests to know why, and receives silence. Or snide anonymous comments from people who seem to be indybay monitors.
Respect should run both ways. If indybay chooses to censor, it should indicate as a matter of course--even if only by a policy number--what policy is being violated. What say ye, indybay?
Comments on Comments
by Sus scrofa domestica
Thursday Jan 17th, 2008 11:21 PM
Santa Cruz Indymedia means a lot of different things to a lot of different people and we all have visions of how it should be. Indymedia volunteers, anonymous and otherwise, spend a great deal of time trying to maintain this website and others. Indybay is a very good resource and may appear to be a professional website, but it isn't. It is not fair to make demands from a small group of volunteers. Some people might find aspects of Indymedia particularly galling, but deriding Indymedia volunteers in comments is not encouraging, particularly when the article, promoted by the volunteers being ridiculed, is about Drummers Being Hassled at Farmer's Market.
When an Indymedia website volunteer either makes a mistake or interprets a comment to be a "flame" or "troll baiting," then the comment gets hidden. Comments on Indymedia that appear to be made to entice other people into angry or fruitless responses serve to undermine the goals and principles of Indymedia. There is not a secret formula or a perfect recipe for deciding when somebody is trying to engage in a genuine dialogue and when someone is trying to entice other people into angry or fruitless responses.
You can catch more flies with honey, which means it is better to engage people in productive ways. Some things can be improved while others need to be more or less accepted for the way they are. Know your enemies, they ain't your local Indymedia volunteers. Rest assured that volunteers are doing their best to maintain this website based on Indybay policies and principles.
....
RE: Comments on Comments
by nr5667
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 1:44 AM
"When an Indymedia website volunteer either makes a mistake or interprets a comment to be a "flame" or "troll baiting," then the comment gets hidden. Comments on Indymedia that appear to be made to entice other people into angry or fruitless responses serve to undermine the goals and principles of Indymedia. There is not a secret formula or a perfect recipe for deciding when somebody is trying to engage in a genuine dialogue and when someone is trying to entice other people into angry or fruitless responses."
Perhaps there should be, as the bias displayed by those with moderating authority is blatant. If Indymedia wants to be considered as something other than a mouthpiece for certain idealogies, as it stands, when Indymedia touts itself as "a collective of independent media organizations and hundreds of journalists offering grassroots, non-corporate coverage. Indymedia is a democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of truth..." It should endeavor to be such, as it stands, the post pmilitant typifies the sort of invective and rhetoric that generally remains unmolested while posts that run contrary to prevailing views (no matter how civil) seem to disappear without a trace.
It is why indymedia appeals to a small minority, and garners limited respect.
to nr5667
by sincere curiosity
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 2:39 AM
why do you read indymedia?
People who disagree with me are more interesting...
by nr5667
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 3:42 AM
I enjoy listening to all points of view... I don't disagree with all that is posted on indymedia. I do find it sad that people don't care to learn about and understand opposing views anymore... To be crude, if the purpose is simply a mental circle jerk, what's the point? I suppose that's just the way politics have been going in America... People have become insular, not caring to interact with people who might disagree...
I notice on websites that lean left, I'm called a fascist, on websites that lean right, I'm called a communist... Perhaps people who post on these websites are just part of a fringe too far gone to engage in salient conversation with.
running website
by leni
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 8:14 AM
Several people here might have been around, or at least were active, at the Seattle WTO in Nov '99 when indymedia was founded. At the time, nobody had a blog, and personal websites were coded in simple html.
At this point, nearly everyone using original indymedia shared a true 'free speech' vision, and there were debates over whether taking out racist material was worthwhile, because someone could say that it is important for the community to realize that racists exist etc.
Since this era, nearly all the actual indymedia volunteers have strongly come to accept the need for some moderation, due to the physical factors of the computer medium. Basically, it is too easy for enemies who loathe indymedia to press 'publish' over and over again, and to write automated robot scripts to continuously upload pornographic pictures and jibberish phrases. There were certain famous trolls such as 'smashtheleft' who spent several years writing comments nearly 16 hours a day, and posting home addresses of activists he'd researched in this area. Clearly this needs to be blocked. Probably at times, you have seen the 'other newswire' section get filled with junk. The collective spent a long time negotiating with news.google to have indybay added to their crawl, by screening the 'local' section for profane material. This brings up hits to the site quite a bit
Go to one of the volunteer meetings. They hold them in rotating cities in the region. I was really floored when I saw them open the website in administrator mode, and it was apparent that antagonists come to crap all over the newswire, taking dumps so to speak, and how the volunteers have set up almost a 24 hour schedule to clean it up before most readers see it. Sometimes at 2-6am there is a break. They set up special handheld computer programs to assist in rapidly deleting bot scripts. There is no IP logging here, but there is temporary recognition of people posting porn. By the way, there aren't that many new volunteers during a particular year.
That said, some people (particularly the Santa Cruz sub-site) want to use the newswire as a discussion forum. I don't know of a comparable forum that isn't a blog of a group of friends. The decision to remove the 'latest comments' list deemphasized this aspect of the site, but it is still an important function. It's not good if legitimate users have their valid voice deleted, but it seems like comments can easily be mixed in with spam attacks.
Ok lets get back on topic
by Tim Rumford
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 11:13 AM
Ok I brought up the censorship issue, due to seeing that a comment was deleted, but lets get back on topic and if people are interested start a post on censorship on Indbay and continue the dialog there. Just a thought. We need to get on topic and ready for Wed.
Thanks
Tim Rumford
http://www.humanityforhomeless.blogspot.com
I thought the topic was relevant...
by treesit_4ever
Friday Jan 18th, 2008 12:06 PM
"Ok I brought up the censorship issue, due to seeing that a c"
-No, it was an important thing to bring up, Tim, and I'm glad the Indybay editors left it up....
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$225.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
Welcome to the dictatorship of the anarchotariat.
Sneering at the messenger isn't exactly an effective rebuttal. It is, however, a typical tactic of public opinion control in anarchist circles. Guess Norse isn't one of the cool ones.....
Of course, this is just his latest "cause". Once he loses this skirmish with the City, he'll move on to the next. Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.
Yes, he will lose this ridiculous drumming/parking lot argument, just like every other one he gets into.
Norse is far from the only local-activist-community member who a) uses this space as part of what they do, and b) feels this way.
Any answer to that? Aside from the Moulitsas model, that is... (i.e. "I own it, so like it or lump it.")
BECKY: Here is the authority that the monitors use to censor comments from people they don't like or with whom they disagree. How does anyone know what I am "hoping" for when I write a comment other than I want, like everyone else, the opportunity to weigh in with a comment? Since when do we not publish a comment because someone somewhere might become "angry?"
If responses are "fruitless" then DON'T READ THEM!!! No reader is forced to read any comment or article. there is simply no excuse for the kind of censorship that goes on here daily.
BECKY: Publishing over and over could be construed as being a major contributor to Indybay.org
Nowhere in the guidelines does it say to limit the amount of comments you make or the number of articles you post. Apparently this is just another unwritten guideline which anonymous censors use to justify removing posts which they disagree with. I have never published automated robot scripts or pornographic images, nor have I published anyone's home address. Yet I have been censored again and again. I am not an "enemy" of indymedia. I am a founding member. Robert Norse and I got our indymedia press cards in Los Angeles in 2000 and went on to be some of the founding members of Santa Cruz Indymedia in the Fall of 2000. Now that I am banned, villified, repeatedly censored, and had my IP address blocked for 6 months, none of these "excuses" given by Leni have any meaning. Its censorship and its wrong.
My "crime" is to be able to take down critics of Israel like Steve Argue with pinpoint target precision using facts and the REAL history. The only defense Steve and the IMC volunteers can manage to mount is to delete my comments.
NADA, ZIP, ZERO.
BECKY: I never had monitor status. I did attend a few early meetings along with Robert Norse. I promoted SC IMC. I advertised it on my tv show, CLUB CRUZ. I advertized it on HUFF literature. I encouraged people to read indymedia at City Council meetings. And I was a main contributor to the content of the site right from the beginning. I often had links to indymedia in the articles I wrote for Street Spirit newspaper. I advertised indymedia on Robert's FRSC radio show. I also attended later meetings where I was treated rudely , jeered at, insulted, and "ordered" to leave.
The fact remains, I was one of the FOUNDING MEMBERS of Santa Cruz Indymedia.
You HAVE posted many articles. That does not make you a 'founding member.'
It makes you a 'user.'
Don't believe me? Here's a couple links to emails that Aaron Selverston, the **original** founder of SC IMC, sent to the global lists when SC IMC was getting off the ground.
http://internal.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=334
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Aaron Selverston"
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 7:04 PM
>Subject: [Listwork] Santa Cruz IMC mail list
>
>
>> Greetings fellow media phreak!
>>
>> We've got a solid group of people here in Santa Cruz ready to get the
>> ball rolling with our IMC. We've got the URL and all the tech info... now we need some email >> lists. Would it be possible to start a santacruz-IMC list?
>> That would be splendid.
>>
>> Thank you so much!
>>
>> -Aaron Selverston
http://mail.indymedia.org/new-imc/2001-July/000555.html
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 11:54:54 -0700
From: "Aaron Selverston"
Subject: [Listwork] Santa Cruz IMC mail list
To: listwork at indymedia.org
Cc: "Ryan"
Hello,
We're moving forward with a Santa Cruz IMC; we've got the URL up and the features area set up, and our collective meetings are picking up... we need a listserve though if possible. So... could we have IMC-SC for the name of the listserve? It will be administered by me, Aaron Selverston. My email: aaron at cats.ucsc.edu, and yes, I understand the obligations of this position. We'd categorize this list under the Local USA: Pacific section on the lists.indymedia.org site. Our site description would simply be: Santa Cruz IMC discussion group.
Thanks so much for your help!
-Aaron Selverston
This is a classic example of the sort of exaggerative reporting the Huffsters regularly indulge in.
Dim Sum---you claim that my articles are "riddled with inaccuracies" but provide no examples.
I assume that's because you are doing your usual defame, smear, and name-call without providing any context. Readers are right to ignore you.
However, I'm glad to see your comments haven't been deleted. All readers should know what a cantankerous blow-hard you are.
BUT WE ALREADY KNEW THAT WRITES: "You had NOTHING to do with establishing, upgrading, and maintaining SC IMC, EVER."
BECKY: Establishing--YES, upgrading and maintaining---NO
What constitutes membership in an organization that keeps no membership lists? I agreed to join. I attended meetings. And I was one of the first people to put up content. At the time I considered myself a member and so did everyone else. More historical revisionism?
BECKY: As I stated before, because its TRUE, I was one of the people approached BEFORE SC IMC went up to join. I joined. Calling me a liar is simply inaccurate. Nor has anyone posted any proof other than denials by people who came later.
Robert Norse and I joined LA IMC in August of 2000 when we attended the DNC.
We were both approached in the Fall of 2000 to start a Santa Cruz IMC. We both said "yes" and participated from then on. This was BEFORE the current batch of monitors seized control and now have been ruining SC IMC ever since with their narrow agendas, censorship, and lack of transparent process.
Van didn't even know about SC IMC until about 6 months after the site was live.
You aren't a good journalist Becky. Actually you're not a journalist at all. You can't just invent stories and then get mad when people call you out on them.
About comments allegedly said by Van. I spoke to Van about a year ago. He said he was disgusted with how the current monitors are running the site. This is the first time anyone has alleged that Van or anyone else was upset with the posting Robert and I were making when SC IMC first went up. However, insults aside, even the anonymous commenter confirms that Robert and I were some of the first people putting up articles at SC IMC like I stated before.
BECKY: Readers should believe this anonymous commenter instead of me because......
Can anyone with authority state when SC IMC first went "live?"
The last SC IMC meeting I was able to attend, the presenters didn't even know when SC IMC first went up. THEY came in AFTER Robert and I did.
Dim Sum acts as if he is an insider. But how can we tell anything about a person hiding behind a pseudonym?
Well, yes. Of course. ASSNA must not be in the habit of doing research either. If they were, they would have almost immediately come across the lies, innuendo and sundry fabrications that spice up your storytelling like overdone Vindaloo.
Calling oneself a journalist requires credentials and an education in the field. Getting gossip published in Spare Change magazine doesn't cut it.
There is no such thing as a certificate of journalism. Yes, people can get a degree in journalism, but that doesn't make them a journalist. Journalists are people who write articles which are then published. Journalists exist in television and radio too, and do not require anything other than that they are doing it to BE a journalist. My 11 years on my TV show, 40 episodes with "Community Perspectives" before that, 10 YEARS writing for Street Spirit, and 11 years producing Robert Norse's radio show more than qualify me as a journalist.
I personally think that indymedia reporters are journalists too. Especially if they report regularly on issues.
As for my accuracy, you have not mentioned a SINGLE ITEM that I have written that is incorrect. Perhaps if you could provide some examples of my error-ridden reporting that you could share with me and with readers? I can't really address your issue without any specifics. My guess is that like Councilmember Mike Rotkin, who likewise accuses me of sloppy journalism, neither he nor you can seem to provide any examples. I wonder why that is so hard is I am publishing SOOOO many lies and am "making it up" as I go as you contend. I'm guessing that is because you are pulling it out of your ass.
But this thread is about censorship. I condemn the monitors who censor anyone they disagree with and even worse, use pseudonyms to write hostile and snide retorts involving name-calling and false accusations. This is NOT their private blog. There is no pre-set acceptable agenda.
Why does a person have to be an "anti-capitalist" to become a monitor?
Isn't that a ridiculous requirement that eliminates most people who might otherwise become involved? How does that play out anyway? Are we supposed to stop making purchases from "capitalists?" Are we supposed to give away our property and services lest we be labled a "capitalist" and have our articles dumped?
Likewise, telling someone to just blog elsewhere doesn't cut it. THIS is the indymedia for our area. There is no other alternative that is the equivalent of a People's Newspaper. Sure there are a lot of blogs out there. I post my articles on both the HUFF site and the DAFKA site. But neither is suitable for a critique of an article posted here by say, Steve Argue.
The comment section is for comments. Comments which are supportive and comments which are critical. Bring back the HIDDEN section so we ALL know what kind of articles are being censored. Bring back the LATEST COMMENTS section so we can see what the latest activity is.
Those who have hijacked this medium are making it worse and worse, rather than better and better.
Finally, why aren't your meeting open to the public???????
Santa Cruz Indymedia went live in March 2001 and the first independent media on the newswire was coverage of the Critical Mass bicycle ride on May 5th, 2001.
"Don't believe the hype - bypass the corporate media machine - take control - make up your own mind. then don't just passively consume the media spectacle, check out IMC - Santa Cruz and get the truth as the events unfold."
For the record, I never claimed to know everything. I do make mistakes too.
If you joined Indymedia in 2000, and it came into existence in 2001, that makes you one big old liar. I don't want to cite more of your writing to prove this. I would need to re-read your writing, which is excruciatingly painful, because my head hurts when I laugh so hard all in one place.
Will you write your memoirs soon, so we can also hear the stories about how you and Robert were charter members of the Internet?
Such a metaphor for your relative control of the resource. So... revolutionary.
Like Tim, I encourage indymedia monitors to bear with what may feel a somewhat rough-and-tumble critique to see where it leads.
Re: Origins of Santa Cruz Indymedia and Becky Johnson
From: Van Dempsey (brechindo [at] gmail.com)
Sent: Wed 1/23/08 2:41 PM
To: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
So, I came back from the D2KLA protests, and decided it was absurd that Santa Cruz of all places had no IMC.
Investigating, I found that one had been attempted previously. The site was technically up, with literally only a couple articles posted, but the code and database were all fucked up and the site was severely broken. I likened it to an abandoned half-sunken derelict that had run aground after a bad launch. The code had definitely been hacked on by some monkey with no clue, posting was definitely broken, and I confirmed with IMC central that it had been abandoned for some time.
I adopted the wreck, and spent 4 months that winter patching it back together and getting it ship-shape and functional again.
Halfway through that process, Aaron appeared - he'd caught wind of my interest through the grapevine, and wanted to spearhead the re-org. He brought in Joe another old timer, and had a meeting at his house. Vinny was there too, and several misc people.
Honestly, other than a lot of cheerleading and posturing, I dont think they contributed anything substantial. Resurrecting that dead site was all my grunt work - learning the system, repairing the system, establishing necessary contacts with host admins, site graphics. At the risk of sounding greedy - it was all me.
I was also creating probably 80% of the content (Vinny was another 10% all by himself, but he was mostly Pirate Radio back then) - that's when I invited you and Becky, since you were both prolific reporters and I was tired of being the only one. Also why I came to your house to try and get you as set up as possible for streamlined publishing to SCIMC. I needed more content on the site.
I intended to make the SC IMC into my vision of a critical yet egalitarian underground news agency. But I saw the writing on the wall - these fucking hippies just wanted to build the liberal equivelant of Fox news - all bias all the time. I thought about just forcibly taking over the site and shutting them all out (after all, I was the one facilitating their access), but I didnt control the DNS records - that was IMC central. I knew what would happen.
At one point I did observe at an SCIMC meeting that we were too heavy with Robert and Becky content making SCIMC look like a single-issue site, but it was never a criticism of the quality of your respective work. Quite the contrary - it was a criticism of the laziness of the rest of Santa Cruz, that they left us few to do all the reporting.
So I began other outreach projects to bring in more content generators, but they either werent completed (the disposable camera project - I dropped that ball) or didnt bear fruit (professional journalists I found who needed to make money and couldnt give away their work).
Eventually, Elaine came along - finally someone else in the collective who had some sysadmin skills. I got her up to speed, and then I washed my hands of the whole mess as I had already been intending for several months (didnt want to abandon the ship, even though I knew it was doomed. That's just not how I roll). There was no hope for SCIMC, so long as these stupid hippies were going to overrun it. All they want to promote is liberal propaganda. They've no interest in journalism, investigative or otherwise. They've no love of truth. They're all about political agendas. Seriously, they want to be Fox News but with an opposite bias - nothing more.
On censorship and transparency - in the original software, nothing was ever deleted - only pushed to a back page, where it could be reviewed by the public. I was hugely in favor of this procedure, and it was one of the features I made damn sure worked.
As more people joined, I tried to establish strict editorial procedures that we maintain this level of transparency, and that every hidden post be editing to include a clear explanation of why it was hidden and who made the call.
Predictably, they slacked on following this protocol, and dropped the feature later after I left.
I keep trying to err on the side of generousity and give them the benefit of the doubt, but no - you're right. Ive seen it many times myself - there is no doubt in my mind that for many years now in fact they have been deleting opposing unpopular non-liberal viewpoints haphazardly but with overall consistency. Especially known names like yours or mine are involved.
It all started with those photos I took of the nude peace protest at the beach - remember that? As the photographer and reporter, I refused to self-censor. As the sysadmin, I officially took no position. So the "Editorial Collective" debated, and since the offending breasts were part of a single-image collage, they censored the entire report.
That's when I stopped reporting.
And it's been all downhill since then.
It's not about truth or principle or the story, with these people. It's about us-vs-them. Freedom of speech - until they dont like what's said. Full transparency - until they're the ones with something to hide.
Hypocrites. Pearls before swine.
-Van
It's noteworthy that Van, in acknowledging that you and Becky would just not shut up sometimes, also qualifies your "journalism" as being in contrast to professional journalists, who couldn't "give away" their work. Did you hear that, Becky? Perhaps the criterion defining a journalist's credentials should be whether anyone on the planet would actually pay to hear this person's account of events. I don't think your "journalism" would qualify. What do you think?
Thanks for digging up some facts to back up the counterclaims to Becky's that she was a "co-founder" of Indymedia, Norse.
Sim Dum is letting his bilious hostility for me and Becky carry the thread away. Those who read this website can judge the quality, accuracy, and utility of our reports.
The thread topic is whether hostile critics (like Sim Dum. Becky, or Steve Argue) are to be afforded the respect of allowing them to say their piece, whether the "hidden" function and the "latest comments" functions should be restored, whether indybay should return to Van's original practice/intention of advising readers when comments are censored what the specific policy violation is, etc., whether meetings will be opened to those whose views are anathema on some issues (e.g. Becky and her Israeli views), etc.
There is a continuing need for activists to work together when they can, even if they oppose each other furiously on some issues. We are in the midst of a criminal war and occupation abroad, a hardening police state nationally, and a gentrification-driven crackdown on the poor and homeless locally. Those of us who want to fight it must pick our battles and recognize where we share a common cause.
Or, in the tired words of old Ben Franklin (or was it Tom Paine?)--"If we do not hang together, we will surely hang separately."
Thanks, Van. I'll forward your letters to Becky and post your first letter on indybay.org/santacruz. If necessary, can I share your second one as well? I suspect you're right about it not making much difference. But whether it's with the SCPD, or left-critics, I feel it's important to put certain things "on record". Thanks, for the candor. --RN
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:21:12 -0800
From: brechindo [at] gmail.com
To: rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Okay to post?
No secrets there - do as you like. But honestly, it's not going to matter. They dont care what you, or I, have to say. If they like you, they agree with and support you - if they dislike you, they disagree, ignore, misrepresent, forget, and try to censor and bury you.
Logic, facts, reason, and credibility have long since fallen out of fashion here.
Surely you of all people have seen the truth of that by now - you (and Becky) were already old school when I *began*.
Remind Becky for me that if she thinks the opinions of these vermin means anything, these are many of the same people who in their infinite wisdom concluded I was with the FBI. "Agent Redcar", remember? Heh. Morons.
Incidentally, Ive never understood why they didnt embrace the two of you as activist community pillars. Of course they didnt like me - I wouldnt play favorites with them. But the dynamic duo of Robert and Becky, christ you two define dogged determination; a trait that runs with great consistency through every great journalist in history.
So far as Im concerned, the only journalistic effort ever worth a damn in Santa Cruz came from me (of course), you two, Vinny (even though he hates me), Joe, Bradley, Lisa Mastramico over at public access TV, and that's it.
I never should have raised my flag under the IMC umbrella. I should have done it independent, and run a benevolent dictatorship. That one mistake derailed all my later effort. We might otherwise have had a very different underground journalism scene by today. Instead, it's 7 years later and look at this - same old shit as when I jumped in.
Fucking monkies. No wonder the elite want to end democracy and take global control - I dont blame them, if I had their money I'd do it too.
-V
On Jan 23, 2008 10:34 PM, Robert Norse wrote:
Thanks, Van. I'll forward your letters to Becky and post your first letter on indybay.org/santacruz. If necessary, can I share your second one as well? I suspect you're right about it not making much difference. But whether it's with the SCPD, or left-critics, I feel it's important to put certain things "on record". Thanks, for the candor. --RN
Re: Okay to post?
From: Van Dempsey (brechindo [at] gmail.com)
Sent: Wed 1/23/08 10:47 PM
To: Robert Norse (rnorse3 [at] hotmail.com)
Go for it. Fuck 'em.
Give it another 50 years, will it look like Pacifica on the inside?
Take the opportunity to stop and ponder the thought. Why? Because you can still change course.
No, I never had monitor status. But that was never the criteria for being part of the collective. Mere "users" don't attend IMC meetings. Members do. In fact, the advertisements for volunteers tell them to first "come to a meeting." Not that there is any written criteria of what constitutes membership. Nor does this paranoid organization keep any kind of membership list.
You know, keeping minutes of meetings is NOT a bad idea!!
Now the task at hand is to reform Indybay.org/santacruz so that:
1. censorship doesn't happen willy-nilly
2. Editors and monitors are KNOWN people
3. meetings are open to the public without harassment and intimidation
4. Editorial guidelines are followed
5. Hidden comments are restored
6. Latest comments button is restored
7. libel is discouraged
8. anti-semitism is held in check
I think these are reasonable demands.
Just get another server. Of course, it means coming up with a tecchie or three-- and this thread aint exactly enticing one! LOL But from all the alienated ones who've fled over the years, you might scrounge someone up, somewhere. Cant hurt to ask around, right?
But seriously, dont complain about the media, be the media, and all that, right?
Take Van's advice. Fuck 'em.
Until then, I encourage indymedia-istas (the insiders) to bring up these issues in their meetings, reconsider them, and keep doing the good work they're doing.
Activists have to have thick skins and resist being diverted from the real issues. Becky would do well to remember that. Still it would be nice if she got more acknowledgment and support for her persistent struggle against local police abuse, galloping gentrification, and anti-homeless City Council crap. She gets enough shit from real trolls and political hacks. And it's always more painful to find those you hoped were allies trashing, excluding, and censoring you.
While we bicker, the bastards win.
Again if anyone wants to start a second radio station or a second indymedia--more power to 'em! Count me in.
BECKY: That's the same as saying "If you don't like the Sleeping Ban, leave town."
Or that old bumpersticker chestnut "Our Country: Love it or Leave it"
It absolves all those who are censoring, harassing, libeling, intimidating, IP blocking, holding secret meetings, and publishing scads of anti-semitic material and puts the onus on those who have been abused. Certainly I can "go away". You don't need to point that out as an option. But my criticisms of Indybay.org/santacruz are long-standing and my association even longer.
Where is the courage to bring back freedom of speech, diversity of views, and open meetings?
As for the microcosmic point-- at some point, you hafta add up whether it makes more sense to fight for a resource base that's inherently AFU, or to put that type of energy into building something new, something founded in a more positive energy.
I prefer to look at it this way, though: growth is only a problem if you're out to control it all. If not, the more the merrier, right?
Maybe the current crew would even help-- they cant enjoy hacking away at you all day, either. I mean-- at this point, how many of the region's IMCs are all rolled into SF? Why not spread that out a bit again?
If the room's too crowded, one can push some people out so others can get in, or one can find a bigger room, or find a place with more rooms.
It's true, it's a bit hypocritical of me to advocate building something new when I'm not even ready (formally) to reveal my identity, let alone commit to doing any actual work on it. As bitter as Van is, I'm that much more so! LOL. OTOH, I just might therefore know whereof I speak, when I say rebuilding it isn't necessarily the worst option, by far.
Also, if this thread has illustrated anything to me, it's that the break in the institutional memory between major generations of technicians who've kept all this IMC computer stuff running all these years, has been a lot more radical than I thought possible, frankly-- though if I'd actually thought for a minute, it should have been obvious enough... Again and again, the "movement" chases its own tail for its lack of an institutional memory. That particular problem would be much easier to fix in this context, but it can't happen before summer. Nor do I know if patching the break would even help.... at least, not without some collective of people willing to do such work, and to receive such gestures of institutional-memory healing. n some ways, history only matters if it's still going on...
Not to digress though, and I do gotta run. But I'm right with y'all-- the censorship regime has been far too far out of hand for far too long. Van's right, there were and are better solutions available, but the internal culture asserted itself, and that's not something you can fix in a meeting or a project.
If you only feel encouraged to keep up the great work and to keep speaking out, I suppose "that's a lot," as Michael Moore once put it...
Yeah right. Sounds like Van has gone off the deep end right after Becky and Robert. End democracy and take global control? I expect this from Norse, but not dear old Van. This is not the Van I knew and loved.
The reason no one takes Robert and Brcky seriously is because they routinely pick silly battles with the community that are destructive and self-defeating. They never win anything and alienate just about everyone in town. Indymedia is hardly alone in throwing them (at least Becky) out of the room with a shovel. Half the businesses on Pacific do the same, and their own elected representatives do everything they can to avoid their correspondence. This is a model for community activism? Don't make me start laughing again. My head can't take much more.
Of course Becky has her own pet cause of anti-semitism thrown in with the cardinal rules for a new Indymedia, the one that now other people can start so she and Robert can come along and wreck it. Why not other protected groups Becky? Not too important, eh?
Vindicated? Uh-huh. The fact remains, you're not a journalist and you didn't found Indymedia. That was eminently clear to all but the most addled minds in that series of posts.
As for Becky and Robert..... they are phenomena, in that they are unstoppable. You start adding up the years like they have, without being crushed or selling out like they haven't, and tell me that isn't a feat in and of itself. In many ways, it might even be the main thing.
And you don't remember who founded the project either, kiddo. So off the high horse. Help us think outside the box, and make your lives easier at IMCSC as well. IMC Felton? Why the hell not?
What you got against Felton?
I don't know who the founders were. I never said I did. I said I knew who wasn't. That would be Robert and Becky.
Okay. It isn't. It's what happens when you own two multi-acre estates in Los Gatos and Bonny Doon respectively. Recepients of a steady stream of trust fund checks don't have to sell out. They can do this all day long.
As Becky would say, petite bourgeoisie, my ass. That's on your side of the fence.
The first was the Pacific Trading Company. I was banned for
walking into the store and asking to interview the manager
for an article I was writing for Street Spirit. I was given the
business card but when I called, no one returned my calls.
I returned to the store to ask for the manager only to be
told that I was being banned from the store and would be
arrested if I ever stepped inside again.
The second business I was banned from is LuLu Carpenters.
I had interviewed two anti-war protesters who were upset that
owner, Manthri Srinath had thrown hot coffee at them and
sworn at them (they were ACROSS the street from his business!!).
I interviewed them and then went into Lulu's and asked if any of
the employees there wanted to be interviewed for their version of
the same event. They didn't. Later....MUCH later, I found out
that Manthri Srinath had banned me for life because he said I
"was sticking my videocamera in people's faces." I actually didn't film
ANY of the Lulu's employees since they declined.
The third business I have been banned from is Bookshop Santa Cruz.
This happened when I wrote then Vice-Mayor Ryan Coonerty at his City Council
address and accused him of having an anti-homeless policy that is
purposely trying to drive homeless people from town. He responded by
banning me from Bookshop Santa Cruz claiming that there had been
increased vandalism in the bathroom during the several weeks in which
we were holding a 2 hour protest, once a week, on the sidewalk near his store.
I had nothing to do with the vandalism, and Ryan as much as admitted that. He
felt that my criticisms of his policies as a city councilmember MIGHT have
inspired someone to vandalize his business. Of course it MIGHT have been
a disgruntled ex-employee. Or it might have been bored teenagers. Or it might
not have happened at all!!!
As you can see, these were capricious and biased banishments which had nothing
to do with any harm I was actually causing their businesses. Since my complaint
against the Pacific Trading Company, LuLus, and BSSC were all legitimate issues,
I am unperturbed by the bannings. They are small-minded petty tyrants and I
am speaking truth to power. While I would rather NOT be banned, I accept these
consequences as coming from vindictive anti-homeless merchants who will wield any
petty power they have.
Of course the Huffsters were responsible for what happened in the Bookshop bathrooms, of course you provoked a reaction from Pacific Trading Company, of course no one threw hot coffee on anyone. All made up garbage and protestations of innocence. You are such snakes in the grass.
I'll be glad to see you idiots lose yet another round....
Santa Cruz 103, Huffies 0.
Just amazing.
Second. Becky, please invest in a calendar. The date was November 12, 2001. The place was Soquel and Front St., at a vigil for the four year anniversary of the police murder of Happy John Dine. You and Robert were there. That is the night I first met Van. I saw Van one or two other times before, with a video camera. That night, I noticed he had an Sf.indymedia.org sticker on it, and so I approached, and introduced myself. Van told me he had been contributing content to sf.indymedia.org but was interested in "starting" an IMC in Santa Cruz. I mentioned to him that there was already a santa cruz imc online, and that I had posted a few audio reports. Van was very excited by this news, and set about trying to revive the site, and collective. Within two weeks, a meeting was held at Aaron Silverstein's house, which I attended (as did you, Robert, Joe, Aeon Blues, Van, and 2 friends of his with "Network 23") this was the FIRST EVER public santa cruz indymedia meeting; a full six months after the site was online.
I attended an open meeting, and posted content to the site. But, like Becky, I did none of the work to get the site going, and, at that time, I didn't know enough about computers to contribute any meaningful work towards maintanence of the site. Also, after 15 minutes at the meeting, I could clearly see that I would have personality clashes with Van, so I decided I would stay out of the collective, and focus on contributing content.
I have never considered myself to be a founder of Santa Cruz IMC. But, now, I ask you, since I was at this meeting, and I have been a long time contributor to the site, am I a founder of Santa Cruz Indymedia, too? Just like Becky?
Becky, it sounds like everyone else will prove my point by providing all the necessary citations of falsehoods and exaggeration in your storytelling.
Becky, let's give you the benefit of the doubt for a minute, and pretend that you and Robert founded Santa Cruz Indymedia after the D2KLA protests. Even if that IS true, its not like you invented the concept of an independent, open publishing, internet website! That was already done FOR YOU, by several named and anonymous individuals, who all contributed little bits (or lots) of time and knowledge to make it happen in time for the Seattle WTO protest in 1999, and beyond. So let's give credit where its due, shall we?
It's too bad this thread is buried-- curiously--in the least accessible "Other" section. It's clearly a "Local" discussion. Any reason why it's "doghoused" down here? When I've asked this question about other local articles I've written, I get silence.
I appreciate the comments from Becky, Vinnie, Van, and even the anonymous folks about the history. Interesting.
Indymedia functions because lots of folks contribute in lots of ways. It even functions as hate-therapy for tenacious trolls like "Sim Dum".
The whole "Becky a founder?" red herring has nothing to do with the thread. I don't regard either me or Becky as founders. Becky takes seriously Van's perspective that we were major contributors. Why does this ancient history have any importance now? So what? Who cares?
I admit that I contributed to this diversion by posting Van's letters--but the point there was to emphasize that concern about indymedia policies extends beyond Sim Dum's favorite villains. Let's get back to the more important discussion about whether indymedia would be improved if suggested changes were implemented.
You tell us, Robert. Becky brought it up, claiming that you and she were founders of Indymedia. You went to great lengths, either communicating with Van or inventing those emails, and posting them here, to back up her claims. Now that both of you have been conclusively and thoroughly discredited in this regard, it's conveniently become a red herring. Time to move on to the next subject. Uh-huh.
Typical Norsing around. Always trying to slide one past the goalie. Can't help yourself, can you?
Vinnie may have met Van in Nov 2001, but I met him and was approached about joining in to form a Santa Cruz Indymedia in the FALL of 2000 shortly after returning from LA. Look at the e-mails from Selvertone. They are dated 6 months before Nov 21. Others posting here claim the site went live in March of 2001.
Lots of other people did ALL the technical work. Like Vinny, I focused on providing content to the site. I was not at that meeting mentioned above. But I was at some of the very early meetings at Cafe Pergolisi.
And NO, I couldn't show my press card to the cops who beat me because I didn't get my press card until the next day.
BTW, I sued the LAPD in federal court along with fellow plaintiffs, Vermin Supreme and Ben Masel. I was awarded a settlement of $10,000. So HUFF never wins anything???
Robert calls me a troll all the time. You don't see me making fantastic claims of inventing the motor car, do you?
Censorship has become less selective and, as this thread makes apparent, it has even become personal in some cases.
He was an SC IMC monitor in those days and happily censored lots of my postings.
Let me address his argument. That means that in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ONLY posts which favor a Palestinian viewpoint were allowed to remain. Therefore, the pro-Palestinian factions had (have) free access to put up whatever propaganda they wanted---true or fabricated---and have no fear of any rebuttals. How is that fair or a service to readers who want to hear both sides of the story?
Finally, all this censoring drives away readers. Very few people will, after having taken the time to read the articles, write a response, only to see it disappear within minutes with no explanation, keep coming back and reading the articles here. Indybay.org/santacruz should be BUILDING a readership, not carving it down to the few "yes" men who are favored by the monitors.
This is the same as allowing the libelous article to remain unchallenged.
Apparently Indybay.org/santacruz openly supports libel.
WAKE UP READERS!!!!
That's really the question.,...
Tell the monitors that you are not babies who need to be shielded from comments with a different point of view!
Tell the monitors you don't want to see Indybay turn into their private blog, but should remain a People's Newspaper where ordinary people can post articles and responses to advance communication within our community.
Attend meetings and ask why we can't know who the "editors" are like any other publication
Or why editorial meetings are held in secret.
Ask why no minutes are kept of meetings.
Ask why one has to swear to oppose capitalism to be part of Indybay.org/santacruz?
Ask why Indybay.org/santacruz is allowed to libel people?
Its YOUR indymedia!!!! The readership needs to en masse and without any equivocation TELL the "hardworking volunteers" to quit ruining it!!!
I also encourage santacruz indymedia monitors to resume the hidden posts section, be specific about which particular policy they are deleting posts under (or clarify why this can't/shouldn't be done), and resume the sections allowing people to go to the most recent comments.
I also support a more libertarian approach, as troll-friendly as this turns out to be in some cases (e.g. Parking Lot Panic law discussion).
However it would probably be helpful for folks who are tired of complaining about indybay.org to set up their own blogs and newsgroups: having more options would be better.
Santacruz indymedia-ists have pretty much shown themselves uninterested in making the changes suggested or even discussing them.
Hence...that task falls to others.
If anyone has the time, energy, and resources to do so, let me know. I'd be interested in helping.
While I in no way withdraw my complaints, I again thank indymedia volunteers for covering such things as the treesit, the Parking Lot Drum Circle struggle, and other local under or un-reported stuff.
Complain!!! Tell the monitors that they need to follow consensed guidelines.
Tell the monitors that you are not babies who need to be shielded from comments with a different point of view!
Tell the monitors you don't want to see Indybay turn into their private blog, but should remain a People's Newspaper where ordinary people can post articles and responses to advance communication within our community.
Attend meetings and ask why we can't know who the "editors" are like any other publication
Or why editorial meetings are held in secret.
Ask why no minutes are kept of meetings.
Ask why one has to swear to oppose capitalism to be part of Indybay.org/santacruz?
I would agree with several of Becky's suggestions: complaining & attending meetings which should either be open or specified as not open with minutes kept.
I also encourage santacruz indymedia monitors to resume the hidden posts section, be specific about which particular policy they are deleting posts under (or clarify why this can't/shouldn't be done), and resume the sections allowing people to go to the most recent comments.
I also support a more libertarian approach, as troll-friendly as this turns out to be in some cases (e.g. Parking Lot Panic law discussion).
However it would probably be helpful for folks who are tired of complaining about indybay.org to set up their own blogs and newsgroups: having more options would be better.
Santacruz indymedia-ists have pretty much shown themselves uninterested in making the changes suggested or even discussing them.
Hence...that task falls to others.
If anyone has the time, energy, and resources to do so, let me know. I'd be interested in helping.
Viva Indymedia!