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

[Mr. Demeanour]

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).

-- 
Jack.