Information is being hidden - people are being lied to. Act Now !
Indymedia belongs to those who contribute to it | 05.09.2007 14:56 | Indymedia | Repression | Workers' Movements
Although the newswire administrators claim the site here is an open platform with a non them and us approach to control I think most people accept the reality is of course different. In the fine tradition of radical organisations through history a small unelected group controls the newswire and decides what is kept on the wire and most importantly what is not.
This "we know best" policy has of late been the subject of much critical comment, not only here but on other activist sites as well. In the past I always admired the way the newswire at least had these discussion in a public format so people could see the view points and understand the thinking. This is no longer the case with the admins now using a closed irc set up to ensure only they are able to see the exchange of views.
However not all are happy with this and most recently a small rebellion saw the following information released into the public domain.
Admin started the ball rolling and now it has been taken up by the others. It calls for there to be one stated IMC UK position on a number of subjects and that any dissent or production of facts that don't support the official IMC UK view to be hidden.
For example IMC UK will have a set policy that climate change is the result of human activity and that any other viewpoint on this issue should be hidden. Aside from the obvious scientific flaw in this view why are the opinions of those groups looking to prove the involvement of Shell and Exxon in funding Greepeace not allowed to be heard ? What about those individuals who have already proven the massive Tory then Labour spin to promote Carbon taxing, do we not see their views ?
A significent proportion of the green activist movement in the US already strongly thinks the whole mankind driven climate change story is a total fabrication backed up by state funded scientists with a financial interest. Why should the readers of the UK newswire not see their research ?
As for GM and Nanotechnology, why again must only one side of the argument be heard. For example is an organisation came up with a way for Bangladesh to avoid losing the current 30% of its rice crop as it does now but that required a minor genetic change. Would we not want to know about it, consider a position based on facts rather than what the admins decide is the 'acceptable' story ?
This "we know best" policy has of late been the subject of much critical comment, not only here but on other activist sites as well. In the past I always admired the way the newswire at least had these discussion in a public format so people could see the view points and understand the thinking. This is no longer the case with the admins now using a closed irc set up to ensure only they are able to see the exchange of views.
However not all are happy with this and most recently a small rebellion saw the following information released into the public domain.
Admin started the ball rolling and now it has been taken up by the others. It calls for there to be one stated IMC UK position on a number of subjects and that any dissent or production of facts that don't support the official IMC UK view to be hidden.
For example IMC UK will have a set policy that climate change is the result of human activity and that any other viewpoint on this issue should be hidden. Aside from the obvious scientific flaw in this view why are the opinions of those groups looking to prove the involvement of Shell and Exxon in funding Greepeace not allowed to be heard ? What about those individuals who have already proven the massive Tory then Labour spin to promote Carbon taxing, do we not see their views ?
A significent proportion of the green activist movement in the US already strongly thinks the whole mankind driven climate change story is a total fabrication backed up by state funded scientists with a financial interest. Why should the readers of the UK newswire not see their research ?
As for GM and Nanotechnology, why again must only one side of the argument be heard. For example is an organisation came up with a way for Bangladesh to avoid losing the current 30% of its rice crop as it does now but that required a minor genetic change. Would we not want to know about it, consider a position based on facts rather than what the admins decide is the 'acceptable' story ?
Indymedia belongs to those who contribute to it