[Fwd: Re: [Imc-uk-process] Re: PROPOSAL - Hidden posts policy]
mrdemeanour at jackpot.uk.net
Wed Feb 2 02:54:32 PST 2005
I accidentally mailed this just to Yoss, omitting to address it also to
the list. Stuff happens.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Imc-uk-process] Re: PROPOSAL - Hidden posts policy
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 23:25:42 +0000
From: MrDemeanour <mrdemeanour at jackpot.uk.net>
To: yossarian <yossarian at aktivix.org>
References: <20050131204921.10841.qmail at mojojojo.andenken.com>
<41FFA164.9070100 at riseup.net> <41FFBD96.1010300 at aktivix.org>
> I'm not an Anti-Watermark Fundamentalist (tm) but it does seem to me
> to be a sort of defensive move, and could be the first step to de
> facto ditching the hidden posts, ditching comments (there have
> already been muted sounds of approval about this in various places),
> maybe closing meetings and retreating from the public more generally.
I made some comments to that effect a couple of weeks ago; they were
intended to be ironic - like: "If our intention is that only admins
should be allowed to read this stuff, then why not just password-protect
it, and forget about the legalese/black-on-black/solid-black-watermark
Answer: because we're committed to Open Posting. If that commitment is
lacking (or even contested), then I've got a lot of *really* pressing
other stuff that I need to do, a long way away from Indymedia. The folks
from the pro-censorship brigade need not fear any veto from me - I would
just fall away and get on with my life, like lots of other people would,
and Indymedia (censored) would become just another special-interest website.
I'm against the "hiding" thing altogether, as it happens; I think it's
intellectually dishonest. I go along with it in a spirit of compromise -
because it's the best practical approximation to openness that I know
of; because it appears, against the odds, to work; and because I don't
have a better solution to the problem of trolls, racist ranters and so on.
> The political message in my view is at best "don't participate in our
> decision-making processes, we've got it all under control..." I
> think this is not a recipe for success.
Damn right! This term "outreach" crops up from time to time. Doesn't
that mean getting all kinds of groups and individuals to use, contribute
to, and participate in Indymedia collectives? Perhaps I've got it wrong
- perhaps "outreach" means getting other people to agree with "us".
Well, there's no "us" that I consider myself to belong to, other than
the human race (and I have some reservations even about that).
Best wishes, folks!
More information about the Imc-uk-process