[Imc-uk-process] whats going on with moderation?

[martin durruti]

Cheers R and as you say it is not an issue of whether we agree totally with
each other but that debate should be allowed. And i am intererested to here
there are similar discussion in NOtts.
And clearly to me and you the article was not PRO Bnp or EDL but written
from the POV of how to destroy racism fascism and loyalism
Clearly you get this but tragically others who i have been trying to
persuade ( mike and ftp ) don't

cheers D02




On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:19 AM, <opprobrium at riseup.net> wrote:

> I certainly didn't agree with everything contained in this article (the
> deliberately controversial concluding paragraph particularly), but I think
> it raises a number of important issues about the political make-up of the
> EDL which need to be addressed. (Certainly it reflects many of the
> discussions in Nottingham I've witnessed since the EDL visited.)
>
> The EDL has fairly superficial politics and seems to be made-up of
> hardcore fascists, foootball hooligans and a number of angry working class
> people. (This is a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.)
>
> While I'm coming to this debate late in the day. I am wary of hiding
> articles simply because we disagree with them. Certainly anything pro-EDL
> (or BNP etc) could and should be hidden (as both racist and hierarchical),
> but we shouldn't be policing what debate is taking place about the
> movement's opposition to them.
>
> R
>
> > how come one person can decide whether posts to the newswire contradict
> > Editorial Guidelines. To get an feature people have to decide
> > collectively,
> > though i am not much impressed with that process. But it is outrageous
> > that
> > one person can decide to censor debate in this way.
> >
> > I posted an article critiqueing current anti fascist attitudes to the BNP
> > and EDL. It is a hot topic of debate and quickly attracted 17 responses
> > most
> > against but many in support yet it was then banned with teh feeble
> > response
> >
> > i then emailed moderaters list but with no reply and also put up another
> > posts asking why the other was banned and received this deeply worrying
> > response Note the bit that says " the evidence suggests ..".  But
> actually
> > much evidence suggest otherwise and this is clearly a matter for debate.
> > To
> > censor a post is it uses substantiated material to disagree with the
> > orthodoxy is extremely wrong and particularly wrong for an opensource
> site
> > as is IndymediaUK
> >
> > There was absolutely no reason to ban this post and it should be unhidden
> > immediately imho
> >
> > cheers D02
> > Why it was hidden:-
> >
> > *13.12.2009 22:32*
> >  The report also quotes: ""But the EDL are not fascist nor racists"
> >
> > The evidence suggests that they are racist, and that there is a massive
> > cross over between them and the BNP.
> >
> > So it was hidden under the "inaccurate" guideline.
> >
> >  *IMCista*
> >
> > http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/12/443398.html?c=on#comments
> >
> > https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/12/443414.html?c=on#c238967
> >
> > __
> > Imc-uk-process mailing list
> > Imc-uk-process at lists.indymedia.org
> > http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-process
> >
>
>
>
> __
> Imc-uk-process mailing list
> Imc-uk-process at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-process
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-uk-process/attachments/20091216/9ac7e058/attachment.htm