[New-imc] IMC Kamloops at an impasse
shayne at guild.murdoch.edu.au
Fri Oct 29 22:35:48 PDT 2004
I think it needs to be recognised also, that there is absolutely nothing
wrong with deleting defamation. since technology like google tends to be
adept at finding hidden articles, and since the law tends not to
distinguish between 'hidden' and 'published', deleting is the better
aproach usually. ANd lets face it, defamation is wrongful when it
unneccesarily hurts good people.
fyi perth deletes defamation , doubleposts and porn (theoretically, no
ones posted porn heer yet!!!!!) , our software doesnt actually delete
things, just makes them unavailable to non editors.
"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do
it, that's trustworthiness."
-- George Bush on CNN online chat, Aug.30, 2000
RIAA Copyright notice trap: http://guild.murdoch.edu.au/~shayne/
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Deja wrote:
> This is an interesting suggestion and I appreciate it. Unfortunatly it
> demonstrates the lack of understanding that we are facing here. This
> proposal would actually lead to more deletions by pulling some materiel
> out of the 'as a last resort and with the consensus of the entire
> collective' category and put them into a 'delete on sight without
> accountability' category. This is the exact kind of thing that we are
> trying to avoid!
> I feel that there is a lack of trust towards the Kamloops collective and
> that this is totally targeted at us for no good reason. I hate to bring
> up Binghamton again, but they just strolled through without anyone
> paying much attention at all. Is hiding copyrighted materiel and
> anything deemed 'not newsworthy' any better than deleting it? Those
> categories are so broad that almost any post could be hidden on the whim
> of the editorial collective! IMHO, this is far outside of the definition
> of open publishing. Not one concern was raised except, ironically, by me.
> I appreciate claras response as well. I think that everything that she
> suggests is exactly what we would do. Those are all options that we
> would have to have used before we got to the 'last resort'. The last
> resort means that we are all sitting at a meeting and looking at the
> situation and can not think of *any other option* than to delete the
> post. That is what 'last resort' means. This is an accountability
> clause, not a 'we want to delete this kind of stuff' clause.
> We will be meeting tonight and discussing these issues.
> Exasperated by this process,
> ana wrote:
> > Hi Deja and thanks for the extensive list of other IMCs that also
> > 'delete' postings...
> > there were mixing of wordings in that list. We need to be clear, i
> > think i encountered 3 types of 'deletion':
> > 1. hide from front page - posting remains available to all viewers
> > either from an 'all posts', or a 'deleted' page, or, from a 'second
> > front page' as is the case of Germany IMC i believe (i think scotland
> > wanted to use this one as well? can check with them if required...) -
> > of course, searchable by google, and the url does not go dead. it can
> > be un-hidden i.e. available on front page again.
> > 2. hide from viewers site - posting is not available to all viewers,
> > it is only available to admins who have a password. url goes dead, may
> > not be searchable by google. but remains on the server and can be
> > un-hidden.
> > 3. erased, completely destroyed from server. posting not availale to
> > viewers or to administrator. url goes dead, not searchable by google,
> > and does not remain on the server, it can not be unhidden.
> > 4... there is another one which is editing 'text' or 'pics' from a
> > posting. this is completely unreversible, as it edits stuff from the
> > server, it could be seen as a variation of type 3 as the old text is
> > erased, removed from the server. Should only be used in case of death
> > threats and similar, the same as 3.
> > 'Normal hidings' go on category 1. The issue on this case is the
> > confussion with categories 2 and 3. (and 4). In the UK we only use 3
> > and 4 for pornography. We do not use 2. We use 1 widely - we are often
> > nazi-spammed, but hidings are _always_ reported to the uk-features list.
> > From the few i read on your list, i believe 3 and 4 are only used in
> > very extreme cases. Misinformation about a prospect action is not an
> > extreme case, i don't think. But that is only my opinion only.
> > Now, as far as your application is concerned, I believe that if you
> > keep options 3 and 4 only for pornography, and an option 2 for the
> > misinformation type, the network would not have a problem with your imc.
> > I think Deja is doing an amazing job here that shows how strongly
> > feels both about his local policy and his will for his group to become
> > an imc. We should acknowledge this :-).
> > As for the feelings that this is causing to Clara, I know it is hard
> > to acknowledge one's own 'pushishness', or [bad] attitude with a
> > sponsor. But I am feeling it myself with the imc that i am sponsoring
> > and I do not like it. It is great that people become articulate once
> > they come to know a bit about how things work, but responding in a
> > nice attitude to some one who is helping you asking nothing in return
> > would help; responding in a pushy manner does not help.
> > ana
> > Deja wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >> Its seems that IMC Kamloops is at an impassse. Our sponsor has raised
> >> concerns about two aspects of our editorial policy, namely that we
> >> have a provision in our editorial policy that allows for the deletion
> >> of the following kinds of posts, as a last resort, and with the
> >> consensed approval of the whole collective:
> >> * Pornography and sexist/abuse posts
> >> * Misinformation intended to disrupt activist actions and discussions
> >> (i.e. false information regarding an event, with the intent to disrupt
> >> the event)
> >> No one in our collective seems willing to remove these items from the
> >> 'Banned Items' category. Our reasoning is that there are enough
> >> checks and balances in place to prevent abuse of this policy and that
> >> removing them would deny us the *option* to permanently delete a post
> >> that says "All bitches must die..." or posts that are factually
> >> untruthful with the *intent* of disrupting protest actions
> >> (destabilization posts). I can understand why the Misinformation
> >> section is controversial, but the Mission Statement of the network is
> >> very clear, the very first line of all Indymedia documentation states:
> >> <>
> >> "The Independent Media Center is a global network of collectively run
> >> media outlets for the creation of radical, *accurate*, and passionate
> >> tellings of *truth*." (emphasis mine)
> >> No where does it say anything about defending the right to lie and
> >> disrupt protest actions. Reading the rest of the mission statement it
> >> seems clear that the intent of this organization is to assist the
> >> struggle for social justice, not impede it. The mission statement is
> >> the base document on which all other must derive, so any open
> >> publishing policy must take its lead from the mission statement.
> >> Activist publishing does just that.
> >> On that basis we believe that we have the right to move forward with
> >> our application as is and put it forward to the network for the
> >> opinions of all to come out. We could just as easily just remove the
> >> offending articles for the purposes of having a quick and easy
> >> approval, then put them in later (as so many other collectives have
> >> done), but is aquiesence the sign of a healthy community?
> >> Personally, I believe strongly that the editorial policy that we have
> >> put forward is the best editorial policy in the network. One that
> >> will build a strong and functional IMC collective. I think that it
> >> deserves review and debate, and not just from one 'gatekeeper' at the
> >> new-imc, but from the network as a whole.
> >> In solidarity,
> >> Deja
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> >> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
> >> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc
> New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
> New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
More information about the New-imc