[imc-uk-moderation] in defence of moderation
shiar at riseup.net
Sat Apr 19 04:48:19 PDT 2008
On Sat, April 19, 2008 3:22 am, ana wrote:
> Without knowind the background of it all, article 396773 which I
> understand the dispute is about, deserves a hiding in my opinion.
No, it's also 396600 that i had in mind when i objected to ben's hiding. I
still think both should be unhidden, and perhaps promoted. They are both
related to a writ of habeus corpus regarding Barbara Tucker, posted by the
person who lodged it herself and containing 'raw material' (the letters).
Although related, they are not exactly about the release itself. Besides,
they were posted _before_ other (rikki's) reports came in, so they were
news at the time.
> There is no background as to why the release of this particular person
> is important, why she was in prison in the first place, just a copy /
> paste of some internal prison system communication about the fate of one
> person. In my opinion it is not news.
Perhaps you think it's non-news cos you haven't been following Barbara's
story? I'm sure it was news for many, including me, who know that
background already (see the SOCPA page).
> Whether "all" her articles should be hidden by default is a different
> matter I think, and for us to decide about it we should be presented
> with at least a couple of her examples. Or is it possible to do a search
> by author?
Are we seriously suggesting to ban a campaigner because she or he "loses
it" sometimes and is angry at the way the authorities are treating them?!
More information about the imc-uk-moderation