[Imc-uk-process] proposal and discussion needed how to handle blog reposts (blogspam)

[ilyan]

Thanks Mr D

We have a large area of agreement.
But if anything is said to be not news  and is hidden, then there is not 
Open publishing.    If the reference is changed to say Open publishing 
of news, then to be honest, BNP news would have to be carried if posted.

The easy answer is to abandon the claim to open publishing,   or be 
proud about being a hypocrite.   Or to accept everything that is legal, 
and write an argument  in the cases where the Moderator disagrees with 
the contributor.    That might be possible if contributors have to 
register their email address.  

Are there any figures to show how many reads each item gets, and do 
hidden items sometimes get really large viewings?  

Regards

Ilyan



Mr. Demeanour wrote:
> ilyan wrote:
>   
>> There seems to be a need to abandon the claim to open publishing.
>>     
>
> I hope I've misunderstood you. If you mean what you seem to be saying,
> then I couldn't disagree more. But much of the rest of this post seems
> to be at odds with that remark...
>
>   
>> - But there is no need to publish something that is freely available
>>  elsewhere to maintain good standing under that heading.   It is what
>> is not elsewhere that HAS to be carried if open publishing is
>> claimed.
>>     
>
> Yes.
>   
>> Maqui's attitude shown here would stop open publishing and suit the 
>> KGBetc very well.  If only  items of interest to activist protestors
>> are carried, no one else will read indymedia except the security 
>> professionals.
>>     
>
> Maqui's draft guideline, as it stands, is quite restrictive; to fall
> foul, a post must meet all three of these conditions:
> (a) is a repost
> (b) relates to institutional politics or structures
> (c) does not concern grassroots struggles.
>
> As far as I can see, banning anything that is a repost cannot amount to
> a restriction on open publishing, because it's already been published
> elsewhere anyway.
>
> The guideline allows posting of stuff that isn't ghetto activism, as
> long as it EITHER isn't a repost, OR is unrelated to institutional politics.
>
> So I think I might even favour a rather broader drafting.
>
>   
>> There will be no ferment of ideas, no chance to show the dishonesty
>> and corruptions of politicians, especially if they are in a
>> hierarchical organisation.
>>     
>
> Why not? The guideline would only suppress the _reposting_ of such
> material, and even then, only if there is no link to grassroots struggles.
>
> And anyway, hierarchical political organisations are intrinsically
> corrupt and corrupting; arguably the corruptness of the politicians
> working in them is Not News(tm).
>
>