[Imc-communication] (EN)(ES)UCIMC: Concern about advertisements for Giga-$ non-free software companies

[Daniel P]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Aaron Couch wrote:
> + The majority of Indymedia's in the US have very few features published. An
> informal count (see results below) show that almost 3 out of 4 IMCs in the
> US have had less than 5 'features' in September.

This is a poor measure of activity, because many IMCs have branched out 
from websites with print, radio, or television programs - most of which 
are inspired by open publishing and actively seek new contributors and 
contributions.  Not as open as the websites because of physical space (for 
print) or time (for broadcast mediums) constraints, but very important 
nonetheless.

> + Several IMCs like UC, NYC, and Philly (and there are others) have worked
> to create more permanent structures such as 501(c)3 status to further work
> within their communities.

I'm not certain how a 501(c)(3) is more permanent, and I'm not certain 
whether a more "permanent structure" is a good thing - indymedias should, 
in my view, facilitate their community's desire to publish and share their 
tellings of news.  If an indymedia requires a federal tax status in order 
to sustain itself, then I don't think they're being sustained by their 
communities - they're being sustained by tax status, by capital assets..

> I laud the work of UC-IMC but also empathisize with the difficulty between
> figuring out efficiency versus the ideal.  That is a struggle we all grapple
> with individually on a daily basis and as a network we will always have to
> think about.

UC-IMC has, in my view, taken a path that is so radically different from 
other Indymedias - and other Indymedia folks are opposing the decisions 
that UC-IMC has made - that I'm wondering whether the organization really 
feels that it's doing Indymedia a service by remaining in the network and 
creating this conflict.  I'm not suggesting that UC-IMC needs to fall in 
line, or leave the network - but I hope that UC-IMC is making sure 
that they're acting in a way that supports the global network.

The software is irksome to me, but I feel that far less excusable is the 
implication that the normal state of affairs is that you need to pay to 
be a member of the part of the network.  Yes, they say that they can 
waive the fees, but forcing someone who cannot pay to be a member to 
request a waiver makes it harder for someone with a lower disposable 
income to join the network than someone with a higher disposable income, 
and I'm very seriously troubled by that.

Daniel P