The format for this article ...

Indymedia newswire on twitter  http://bit.ly/2jjAFP

or possibly

Indymedia newswire on twitter  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/11/441833.html

A fundamental problem with this suggestion is that it takes a certain control away from moderators. If the proposed system change is automated, it leaves a trace of moderation activities on the rest of the internet even if not on Indymedia.

The front page of Indymedia contains an RSS feed. It is entirely possible to tweet everything from that RSS feed onto Twitter. This would leave moderators in the position of being obliged to ensure that moderation takes place in an open fashion. This is not a "moderation rant" - a claim that would only serve to give the impression of moderators versus users. The obligation for a more open moderation is not an obligation to be seen to moderate openly but for moderation decisions to be documented and openly seen because Twitter could, potentially, make that happen without moderator intervention. There are frequent reasons for totally open moderation not being the case or for totally open moderation not being wanted to be the case.

Tweeting is a superb idea but it leaves Indymedia open to manipulation by anybody wishing to post. If only the headlines are tweeted and someone clicks through to a hidden article with the words "this article contravenes the editorial guidelines" the immediate claim can always be "Indymedia censors". Moderators would need to leave any fragility of ego behind because it would happen frequently. Unless there is specific clarity around which editorial guideline is broken then the entire process will subvert the open newswire principles by placing moderators into the position of needing to justify other peoples' texts to the Twitter audience.

Consider the scenario of an animal rights activist proposing the removal of an article by, say, "Richard Dawkins" (or some other random biologist), on the basis that he allegedly promotes speciesm of some sort. To a wider audience that needs a justification that is not perceived as necessary to the more narrow audience of Indymedia. Consider the scenario where the animal rights activist succeeds in removing an article that lists "myths" about "animal rights" then the perception at Twitter becomes that Indymedia is simply a means to promote (exclusively) animal rights. Promoting to the audience in Twitter is an inevitable progression, but it is one that might actually limit the effectiveness of Indymedia. Again, this is not an attack on Animal Rights Activists (but why would I need to say that?) just as the prior comment was not a rant directed at moderation. The comments are made as a presentation of the new issues that will inevitably arise once Twittering happens - which it will sooner or later.

The profile of those who twitter does not match the profile of those who Indymediate. Unless there is a serious debate about communicating the radical to a wider audience then Indymedia will become present on Twitter, become fashionable for a week and then be treated as the bellweather of "loony lefties". Twitter has a demographic profile that will facilitate this. Unless Indymedia arrives on Twitter as a serious presenter of "quality journalism", the major user base (those involved in media, advertising and celebrity culture) will simply treat it as a passing fad with inevitable long term damage. This goes to the heart of the reason for hiding articles: unless it is done in a way that is Twitter friendly then it will blow up "scandalously" at some point.

No thanks, this is the independent media - I'd like to keep it that way.

You want to use twitter/facebook - goo ahead. The rest of us with any security sense will avoid them like the plague.

The newswire also isn't the place for this - there are discussion lists to bring it up.

As a non-news piece I suggest this is removed.