I'll explain this s-l-o-w-l-y. IndyMedia's neo-nazi rants got it removed as a *news source*, not wiped entirely from the search engine. There are plenty of other hate sites you can find by searching Google.

By the way, has IndyMedia thought about creating a section for kids, so they can learn to hate too? You could model it on kids.stormfront.org - in fact, you could cut and paste most of the content too.

indymedia neo nazi?

must be posted by a stalinist centrist autocratic moron.

Yes - well I typed Indymedia into a Google search, and ,yes all these sites came popping up, including UK 4th or fifth in the list.
Sorry, what's this story about?

I see - this relates to a comment to the google story a little down line, claiming IM's removal. Surely it would have been a less confusing place to put your comment!

... until it sticks.

The game plan:

Silence dissent through infiltration disinfomation & misrepresentation.

Classic spook tactics - divide and conquer (or warfare through 'deciet').

In infomation theory it amounts to turning up the noise and in chaos theory it's about creating paradoxical energy, that throws the flow into spiralling cascades of randomness.

Or put simply - it's about shooting the messenger rather than addressing the message.

Thanks for the clarification, jacks:-)
Anybody else feel lost?

But open publishing is both the strength and weakness of indymedia - by its very nature no one can control what is actually put up and there are a lot of immature people out there who prefer to abuse the facility. But as I am sure you know there are guidelines set out by indymedia, and if a piece is judged to break the guidelines then it is removed. Neo-nazi rants do get removed, as do racist stereotyping of, let's say palestinians, as a lot of that goes up (and comes down) as well at the moment. Criticising a government, or its policies of whatever persuasion does not fall foul of the guidelines unless it contains remarks that are factually incorrect. Naturally we would prefer if people recognised Indymedia as a newswire rather than a platform for ranting and used it as such, but you just can't account for everyone.

Why not research a story or post something more constructive on the website than this nonsense, contibuting to a decline in the standard of news.

The reality of the situation is no matter how much the staff and financial backers of IMC wishes it, their pet project is not a "News" outlet. There are news worthy posting on their assorted pages but they are scatted with all sorts of personal essays and unsubstantiated postings that have not been fact checked.

When people look for "news" they want facts that they can trust. Serious news sites have fact checkers and editors to ensure a level of reliability that can be trusted by their customers. Most importantly those legitamit "News" organizations have accountability. There is a way to track down those that are responsible. When they do wrong there are checks and ballences that can be enforced (even if we don't like the results).

IMC does none of those things. Therefore Google's actions were perfectly and legitimately justified in removing IMC from their News organization database.

If the IMC staff, financial backers, and supporters don't like Google's actions then I suggest that they start building some accountability into their structure.

Being somewhat of an anarchist in outlook, it is my belief that a service belongs to the people that use it.
In the case of the corporate media, most people are content to passively absorb what is directed at them - and in return what they 'own' of the medium is the right to have others form their opinions for them.
With the case of IMC type websites there is a much higher level of participation to the point of it going beyond simply apeing the formular of traditional mediums and entering the territory of a collective conversation/perpetual article. This is not only highly threatening because it liberates peoples ability to make up their own minds given a broad spectrum of the facts and opinions, but also threatening in the sense that it opens up the debate into regions that 'the powers' have no sensible or rational arguments against.
Hence the propensity to obtusificate ,oblitorate and divert the energy and good intentions of people inwards.
In terms of information theory this is called adding noise and makes it much harder to extract meaningful information.
This whole google thing is merely an attempt to obscure the fact that people are opening up to new ways of thinking and to throw the tentative info explorer off course.
We must be free to make mistakes with our opinions and to have them addressed collectively in a way that does not prevent the progress of individuals and their own revelations and understanding.
IMC is not perfect and will be judged harshly by those looking for an excuse to either return to their own passivity or to ensure the passivity of others - it is beholden of us all to invest energy in information exchange and to follow the arguments through - often it is the case that that which [we] believe now, we cease to believe later and find hard to concieve of ever believing. This is ok. It is a natural process and no one should be ashamed of either changing their minds or sticking to their guns against a percieved majority - even if they are dead wrong!!!