Skip to content or view screen version

Indymedia: It's time to move on

A reposter | 17.02.2013 19:48 | Indymedia

Two weeks ago, on 31st January, the Nottingham Indymedia collective disabled the ability to publish new newswire items. This drastic action was taken in order to demonstrate what will be lost if the collective folds, in the hope that those who use the site will step up to keep it going. A meeting will be held at the Sumac Centre tomorrow, on Monday 18th Feb, to discuss the future of the project and all those with an interest in being involved are invited to attend.

 http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/indymedia-its-time-move/

Indymedia is the name given to a particular network with a rather uneven global reach, to which many hundreds of local independent media projects, mostly web-based, have been affiliated at one time or another. It is also the name for a particular approach to news media – one that attempts to avoid hierarchal production and hence promote grassroots reports on events.

It seems to me that the moment has arrived to examine the Indymedia model and ask whether it is still useful and necessary to the social movements that it grew from. After all, a lot has changed since 1999, when the first Indymedia site was launched, both in terms of the online environment and the outside world.

On the web, we have seen the rise of corporate empires like Facebook and Twitter : monoliths with hundreds of millions of users and an apparent stranglehold on dissemination of information online. Pockets of resistance exist: open source enclaves that don’t seek property rights on everything you post and federate with others rather than seeking global dominion. However, these tiny anomalies are few and far between, pushed out to the margins of a web that is increasingly enclosed by multi-million dollar businesses.

The rise of the giants has been propelled by massive investment in developing software. The resulting flexibility and capability of Facebook and friends makes these sites attractive to the user who wants to quickly and easily communicate their ideas and plans to hundreds and even thousands of others.

The undoubtedly dirty money that the corporate monsters get through stealth advertising, selling other people’s content and from ‘no strings attached’ venture capital is what makes this constant development possible. Volunteer coders who scrabble to find time for independent projects in between day jobs and political activism simply cannot compete, however ingenious their ideas. The result is that the anti-corporate web is often buggier, clunkier and more out-of-date than its capitalist rivals. Users who are often unaware or don’t care about the politics simply opt for the slicker sites.

Indymedia collectives in the UK are no strangers to this phenomenon. The UK Indmedia/Mayday collective site runs on a Content Management System (CMS) called Mir that was migrated to 10 years ago. This gives the site the look and feel of a 10-year old site: rather old in web development terms. London Indymedia decided enough was enough and one of their techs developed Hyperactive, a CMS that was meant to incorporate some of the features that had been developed as part of ‘Web 2.0’ and that are now commonplace on social media sites. It was taken up by a number of regional sites, including Nottingham in 2010. Unfortunately the usual time and energy constraints on the people involved conspired to thwart the project. Hyperactive is no longer under development and Indymedia seems to be unable to find a sustainable way of keeping up to date.

It is not just the online environment that has changed. I would question whether a coherent user community still exists in the same way that it did at the height of the anti-globalisation movement. The loose coalition of anti-capitalist, environmental and anti-war movements that protested the big summits of global power has evolved in many directions. Many of those involved took note of the diminishing returns of spectacular protests and looked for other avenues for their dissidence.

Those who chose to embed themselves in local struggles whilst ‘thinking global’ were amongst those who set up and nourished a proliferation of local Indymedia collectives in the early years of the 21st Century. This was certainly true of Nottingham Indymedia, which was launched soon after the Gleneagles anti-G8 protests of 2005 in an attempt to sustain the local activity that had been mobilised.

Fast forward to 2013 and it is clear that these movements have suffered many defeats, police spy infiltration and repression and many activists have burned out or moved on with their lives. Movements that came along in their absence, such as the anti-cuts movements, have seemed ephemeral and have not been able to sustain themselves. The younger generations that might have replaced them look to newer, amorphous brands, such as Anonymous and Occupy, which don’t have an obvious local manifestation. The result is that many activists no longer seem to have affinity with Indymedia, which has become associated with movements of the past that have run their course.

However, I don’t just want to look at the cultural peculiarities of Indymedia as it has manifested itself in this time and place. What of the underlying model of media production and dissemination that underpins these particular individual instances?

To my mind, Indymedia has three major strengths: eradicating hierarchy, protecting privacy and enabling collective media production.

Firstly, Indymedia seeks to undermine the traditional media model of editorial hierarchies which filter out the vast majority of content and viewpoints according to the whims of the gatekeepers. Indymedia encourages a proliferation of voices and stories, often through open publishing on the web.

Whilst open publishing has become commonplace on web forums and mailing lists, the idea of open publishing for news remains controversial, largely because many are still in thrall to the idea that certain viewpoints are more important and more accurate than others.

The idea behind overthrowing this hierarchy was to allow the previously voiceless and marginalised the opportunity to speak. In practice, this is hard to achieve. Few Indymedia sites allow totally open publishing because soon they would be overrun with bullying, abusive behaviour, used as a platform for authoritarian and discriminatory viewpoints and to spread malicious lies.

Indymedia sites tend to have a set of guidelines and moderators to remove posts that infringe them. The problem with this is that it can reinstate hierarchy by the backdoor. The moderators can easily slip into an editorial role, making decisions that, subconsciously or not, influence the character and environment of the site and consequently the user community.

For this reason, Indymedia collectives strive to ensure that moderation is transparent and accountable to the wider community. Again, this is the principle but the reality often fails to live up to it. Few individuals have the time and energy to scrutinise every moderation decision or go to collective meetings unless they are already a member of the collective (and therefore part of the in-group). Indeed, the recent history of Indymedia in the UK has largely been one of schisms between different in-groups hostile to what they perceive as external ideas about how to run their site.

These limitations aside, I firmly believe that the principle of access to the creation of media for all has revolutionary implications and is needed to break the hold of the media empires. A grassroots media from below is needed to challenge the narrative of the powerful and assert the viewpoint of those excluded from mainstream discourses. Whether the open publishing model is the best way to achieve that goal or not is open to debate.

The second major strength of Indymedia has been its promotion of anonymity in a world of state and corporate monitoring and control. Whilst mainstream sites track IP addresses and every mouse click you make, many Indymedia sites have been robust in not logging user data and allowing the powerless the possibility of not being scrutinised by the powerful.

The dangers of complying with the statist aim of controlling the internet are clear. There are numerous examples of sites giving up user data to the authorities to enable prosecutions and repression. Indymedia sites publishing reports of interest to the police and other security agencies have been raided and had servers seized. Thanks to the security measures in place, these police state measures have not led to personally identifiable data being grabbed. Protecting the identities of users who choose not to disclose is essential, in order to give confidence to those who take direct action against the powers that be.

As with all of these principles, however, anonymity has a dark side. When no one knows who is speaking, it is easy to maliciously impersonate other people, to infiltrate discussions and derail them. But perhaps this also encourages the reader to question what s/he is being told and to try to dig deeper in an attempt to find the truth.

The final key ingredient to Indymedia, and probably most often neglected, is the aim of collective creation of media. More than just a resource, Indymedia should be a community greater than the sum of individual contributions. When I first got involved in the network, there was intense collaborative activity on mailing lists in order to craft feature articles, set up media stations at major actions and share knowledge and expertise. Over time, differences of opinion and infighting have set in and the UK network has irreversibly broken down. There is no longer much of a meaningful Indymedia community and very little collaboration outside of a few small groups of Indymedia ‘professionals’.

The result is that a lot of the energy and excitement has gone and more than a few collectives seem to continue out of duty rather than a positive commitment to the project. Providing a platform and the motivation for the collective creation of media were essential in making Indymedia a rewarding network to be in and in taking its output much further than a collection of isolated individual viewpoints ever could.

So, given all of the above, is Indymedia still important? Yes, absolutely, as an idea. Unlike some, I am not particularly fussed about the Indymedia name and brand; what is important is that a media from below continues to flourish and challenge the media imposed from above. I have tried to outline what I see as the major challenges and obstacles that will inevitably crop up – the struggle to keep up technologically, the necessity of avoiding hierarchical organisation and exclusion and the need to support community and collaboration as well as giving voice to dissent.

I think it is high time for those involved in Indymedia and other similar projects to examine the new political and social terrain, to evolve and adapt in order to continue what Indymedia has set in motion. I am not content to keep banging my head against the same limiting brick walls forever; I want to find ways of moving over them, avoiding them or undermining them. Now seems as good a time as any to start looking for fellow travellers.

Our decision to curtail publishing on the Nottingham Indymedia site and call a meeting is an attempt to create a space for new ideas. We are not interested in continuing along the slow but certain path to total irrelevance but want to draw in new people and start off in new directions whilst remaining faithful to the underlying principles of Indymedia.

The mainstream media has recently been exposed once again as utterly corrupt, devoid of ethics and manipulative. However, few independent media outlets can come up with a sustainable alternative which gives a voice to those who have been spoken over for so long. This article has been written in the hope that others will reflect on the successes and failures of the Indymedia movement and that new independent media models can be developed from its legacy.

A reposter
- e-mail: http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/indymedia-its-time-move/

Comments

Hide the following 25 comments

Utter rubbish.

17.02.2013 20:22

"Behindthemask is a writer and activist who has been involved in Nottingham Indymedia and the UK Indymedia network for the past 8 years."

That's not very long I have to say. And involved in what way exactly?

Indymedia is fine enough and has a role in publishing which increases in legitimacy by the day. For instance, how many of you can now post on the internet without having to sign in to Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Google, Yahoo and Discus first? What I mean is how many of you can now comment without having to first travel over to the US where you must personally identify yourself to a service which is routinely monitored by the security and intelligence services?

How many is that again? Ummm, would that be zero by any chance?

The web is being closed down and it is Facebook, Twitter and Google that are closing it down. Funnily enough, they are sworn to tell you how much they love you while they are doing it. In the very near future, you will not be able to comment at all anywhere in the world on any website MSM or supposedly independent site without first being forced to pass through a vetting and monitoring service. You yourselves will have created the police state that you claim to have been fighting. How's that for fucking stupid?

Indymedia allows you to comment and allows you to comment with freedom to speak. You can say what you want and you can say anything you want. You can do it without being monitored by the intelligence services of foreigners who do not understand your culture or your idelology. To say that Indymedia is finished because of some easily guessed at idea of what constitutes good publsihing is something anybody can do. This article contains nothing but guesswork and silliness. Long standing users of Indymedia will know why this "campaign" to delegitimise IMC is ongoing and will find it very easy to get at who is responsible for it.

You see, we reject the idea that all you have to do to make something stick is to endlessly repeat some juvenile piece of garbage until such time as people simply give up arguing against it. We reject that and we reject the people that build this world of injustice by taking that approach. It isn't reasonable and it isn't mentally sound. One wonders at the mental health of people who do that. My friends call it fanaticism, I call it totalitarianism. It isn't legitimate we all agree.

If you want to write "yet another article" about the demise of Indymedia, and lets face it, you have done little else for the last 5 years, then I would suggest you actually stick to the facts, none of which point to the IMC project finishing.

The more this global malevolent shadow builds to smother and take ownership of our freedoms, the more relevant and legitimate Indymedia becomes.

So I guess that for now anyway, Indymedia's enemies will just have to sit back, do the figures, add up the nays and the yays, and will have to come to the conclusion that the data demands they conclude with...

Indymedia lives on.

anonymous


What ever happened to UK independent media?

17.02.2013 23:14

London Indymedia folded a few months ago, and now Nottingham. Northern Indy are calling for volunteers. Schnews is staggering along at best.

Yet nothing has come to replace these. Where are the new networks?

I know that the 'younger people' (cf Prince Charles: 'Hello, you're a young person are you? How long have you been young?' etc) mostly do Blogs, Facebook and Twitter, but two main thoughts that come to mind are...

A: Is the idea of a 'publication' now redundant?
Text-length tweets, disparate atomised Bloggers and FB banter hardly replace the concept of a publication. Call me old fashioned, but I can't see why the idea of a publication should be a redundant idea. It's about having an editorial position, a prescribed range of subject matter and format, and publishing articles which are consistently of a certain quality, and reflecting the editorial line. Readers seek out publications which they largely agree with, or provide them with what they are looking for, and can come to trust, even rely on these publications, and sometimes networks or 'communities' can form from this.

Some of the most useful aspects to the idea of the edited publication are that - for instance - they can be a 'clearing house' bringing together a range of news and info; they can point you at information you never would have heard about otherwise; they can take the specific language and data of a special interest group and translate it into something you can understand better; if a publication consistently maintains an editorial line or level of quality or integrity, it helps you interpret or decipher whatever they are saying.

And while Indymedia is a paradigm-shift away from most editorial-room norms, it is able to function as a node in the way a good publication can: a place to visit often which brings a lot of strands together (as opposed to a scattered array of atomised, lone bloggers, campaign sites and tweeters which you've got no way of knowing about), a clearing house for the latest on a whole range of topics, and a sense that it is a hub for a 'community' (well whatever you call the activist scene). If you're involved in one campaign chances are you're also interested in many others and the general state of play - so Indymedia (and Schnews) have been filling that role.

With the spread of blogs and twitter feeds and FB pages and postings, one thing that is often missing is the sense that any of it has been verified. The flipside of 'citizen journalism' is that you may read reams of unverified or anonymous material and end up not trusting any of it. I realise that on Indymedia the open postings were never verifiable, but I take the features to be 'editorialised' to a reasonable level of quality control. That was always the good thing about Schnews - it normally appears to be well researched.

B: Security of Social Networking
I realise that those er 'young' people use social media as though it's in their DNA, but, surely by now they are waking up to security issues involved. The fact is we simply cannot have so much of peoples' personal info - revealing everything about them - sitting on corporate servers forever, out of peoples' hands. You may think that 10 years is a long time on the web - but remember that in 10 years time, FB will have nearly 20 years of some peoples' lives on their servers. FB may not be recognisable by then - it may have fallen into other corporate hands, and your personal data open-slather for marketing and surveillance agencies (if it isn't already). FB is a dream come true for any despotic regime.

There are other known social network sites written with security and privacy in mind - which of course anybody involved in activism should move straight to (eg Crabgrass, Diaspora).

However sorry but I still can't see how any social networking setup - however secure - can provide a platform for a staple publication like Indymedia or Schnews. But go ahead and prove me wrong.

Get out of the 'walled gardens' folks. The web is rapidly 'privatising', and if we're not careful it will be run by a handful of corporations - Apple, Google, Amazon, FB etc, and the majority of people will be 'locked-in' with these corporations through the services they offer, the proprietary software and formats they own. It's already at the stage that a website which is outside these 'Walled Gardens' - and isn't linked up to its eyeballs with 'Like' buttons, and not even on a Blog site like Wordpress - is out in a ghost-town hinterland which nobody needs to go to anymore. Get out of these privatised enclosures and re-affirm the autonomous, secure places people have spent years carving out.

Armchair Pundit


@anonymous

17.02.2013 23:46

What planet are you on?

This article is thoughtfully written from a position of sympathy not just with indymedia but with the idea of independant, free, grassroots media. It's certainly not a "juvenile piece of garbage" or "utter rubbish". Its asking vital questions about why we are in our current situation and where we might want to get to. And as if someone being involved in a project for "only" 8 years doesn't entitle them to have an opinion on it! How many campaigns or projects last a fraction of that time?

Its clear to everyone who visits the site (and I'm not involved in any way, I'm an anarchist who uses it to find out whats happening in the world, and I have no axe to grind) that indymedia is in serious trouble. When I first came across it almost ten years ago I was utterly inspired, not just by the concept of a free media, but by the vibrancy of the articles and the world that it represented.

As the OP stated, the world has changed. The movement that spawned IM has splintered in many different directions. This is hard for us to deal with - friends who once fought alongside us have taken different paths, and there are fewer and fewer people to take their place. There are new challenges emerging - how do we organise in this decade? How can we rally an anti-capitalist movement? The situation on the ground has changed and we have to change with it.

I don't have answers to those questions, but I wholeheartedly welcome honest and intelligent contributions to the debate, such as the OP.

This is not about the "death of Indymedia", although presumably (from the bile you just spewed onto the keyboard) you've been very involved in an IMC and are very attached to it as a project, and so its understandable that you might mistake IM for the movement that created it. The decline of indymedia (and if you're denying a decline you are, quite frankly, fucking bonkers) is a symptom of this wider trend. In order to remain effective as a movement we need to critically appraise our tactics and our tools. Indymedia is one such tool.

bob


why that post is bad

18.02.2013 01:00

'This article is thoughtfully written from a position of sympathy not just with indymedia but with the idea of independant, free, grassroots media. It's certainly not a "juvenile piece of garbage" or "utter rubbish".'

It didn't offer sufficent fealty to the unsurpassed and flawless wisdom and masterful mastery of the tiny little clique that grabbed this site, is why. It always sets them off if you're not sufficiently worshipful and in less than perfect awe of their perfect awesomeness.

The purpose of Indymedia UK, at this point, is to preserve its own power, such as it is. They proved that in May of 2011.

And maintaining power for power's sake is indeed the sign of a dying leadership of a dying movement. Most IMCistas have stepped off the bus, because the see the direction it's going.

And they, not the guys driving the bus over the cliff just to prove that they can, are the ones who are true to the spirit of Indymedia.

Baddie McBadbad


a question

18.02.2013 01:19

'Indymedia allows you to comment and allows you to comment with freedom to speak. You can say what you want and you can say anything you want.'

Is there anyone left who actually believes this about Indymedia UK?

freeedom of speeech


Whinging and whining.

18.02.2013 01:30

"This is not about the "death of Indymedia", although presumably (from the bile you just spewed onto the keyboard) you've been very involved in an IMC and are very attached to it as a project, and so its understandable that you might mistake IM for the movement that created it. The decline of indymedia (and if you're denying a decline you are, quite frankly, fucking bonkers) is a symptom of this wider trend. In order to remain effective as a movement we need to critically appraise our tactics and our tools. Indymedia is one such tool."



When I started the politics of jealousy of wealth were endemic and universally accepted, Anti-Capitalism was a conspiracy theory touted by Communists and terrorists, it was considered universally that you cannot buck the market, the bankers were universally trusted and the political movements of Capitalism such as Capitalists and Socialists had the highest membership in their long histories. The media were great movements that struggled for the truth and you could always trust politicians.

Then Indymedia started and the fight began.

Twelve years later Capitalism has collapsed as an ideological force, jealousy of wealth is universally rejected, anti-Capitalism is described as being the worlds second superpower in terms of influence, you can not only buck the market but you can fuck it too, bankers are despised throughout the known world and the political movements of Capitalism such as Capitalists and Socialists have experienced one of the most catastrophic collapses of membership in their entire history. The media have all but collapsed and are routinely ridiculed.

And all you can do is sit here with your fucking finger stuck up your fucking nose gobbing off about how Indymedia is finished for the umpteenth fucking time.

Do you want to know the secret of our success?

We do not attribute our failures to those we despise in the hope that by doing so, we might be rid of those failures at the expense of those we despise.

Maybe you need to search inside yourself to try to understand why it is you keep failing.

Endlessly repeating the same old deluded garbage to people who know better might have something to do with it. Oh and also, you might want to stop endlessly moaning, whinging and whining about everything failing and going wrong all the time...we only accept that sort of thing from Capitalists and warmongers.

You are, your own answer.

Me


Good grief!

18.02.2013 01:52

"And they, not the guys driving the bus over the cliff just to prove that they can, are the ones who are true to the spirit of Indymedia."

What really fucks you off is you are completely unable to close this site down. That is what you have been dedicated to for the last two or three years. Every now and again an article appears denouncing the UK national by claiming that IMC is finished and that its just an inevitable part of the relentless onslaught of Capitalism. Always we here about the strength of Capitalism being the ultimate force and always we here about how Indymedia is failing and that Capitalism must and will triumph. Always always the same ole same ole. You never fail to let your true feelings gush out onto the page. Sometimes you think you're being clever, but its only in your mind.


"Is there anyone left who actually believes this about Indymedia UK?" - in reply to being able to post freely on the UK national site.

Post that again on the comments section of the IMC UK Newswire. Yes, that's right, the very same IMC UK newswire that you have been posting articles about IMC UK dying for the last two or three years. Remember though, that the IMC UK national site is a "subjective" resource and that we are a site for activists. If you are just using it to justify armies mudering children then you have to expect that your comments will be removed or hidden and yes, you must expect that as we are campaigning for justice and peace, we have exactly ZERO reasons to keep your troll crap on this site where people can see it. That isn't our fault, it is your fault.

If you don't like that then you are quite free to fuck off and play in the busy road if you want - honestly, we don't care what happens to you, neither will anybody else. This is what you must expect if you want to justify the killing of children by authoritarians.

I can't believe we have to still post comments to this site on this topic. I mean for christ sake troll, at least TRY to put a bit of effort into it.

This is frankly becoming embarrasssing now. I really do mean that.

I am now laughing at you.

anonymous


fourteenth earl of gurney

18.02.2013 02:09

"Behindthemask is a writer and activist who has been involved in Nottingham Indymedia and the UK Indymedia network for the past 8 years."

"That's not very long I have to say."

Ooooo, you tell him, your highness! Eight years doing Indymedia isn't nearly long enough to deserve an actual opinion on it. A presumptuous little embryo, compared to *your* exalted heights. Good thing you whipped the little pup before he said something out of place!

dry bones


Baddie McBadbad

18.02.2013 07:57

"The purpose of Indymedia UK, at this point, is to preserve its own power, such as it is. They proved that in May of 2011."

Remind us what power we have McBadBad.

And what was proved in May 2011 is that you can't enforce consensus in the face of blocks.

You can always spend your time at BeTheMedia which is the site that the majoritee thought would be the answer.

 http://www.bethemedia.org.uk/

And Indymedia was never a free speech site - it always had guidelines and hid posts from day one. Dedicated trolling has ensured that it continues to do so.

IMCista


Completed deluded

18.02.2013 10:18

"When I started the politics of jealousy of wealth were endemic and universally accepted, Anti-Capitalism was a conspiracy theory touted by Communists and terrorists, it was considered universally that you cannot buck the market, the bankers were universally trusted and the political movements of Capitalism such as Capitalists and Socialists had the highest membership in their long histories. The media were great movements that struggled for the truth and you could always trust politicians.

Then Indymedia started and the fight began.

Twelve years later Capitalism has collapsed as an ideological force, jealousy of wealth is universally rejected, anti-Capitalism is described as being the worlds second superpower in terms of influence, you can not only buck the market but you can fuck it too, bankers are despised throughout the known world and the political movements of Capitalism such as Capitalists and Socialists have experienced one of the most catastrophic collapses of membership in their entire history. The media have all but collapsed and are routinely ridiculed."



You are completely and utterly deluded. I ask again, what planet are you living on? Capitalism has never in history functioned so well to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.



This is not about partisan groups. This is not about a shady group of freedom-trampling nazis attacking you personally or trying to stamp out dissent on the web. There is a real world out there, where we are fighting and currently being defeated. We need to reassess our tools and our methods. Indymedia is just one part of the struggle, and should be prepared to change to suit the times.

You must derive a lot of self-esteem from being involved in such an important part of the anti-capitalist movement. But are you doing a more important job than all those who are campaigning and usng indymedia to reach out to others? You clearly think that you know best, and not only that but that anyone who challenges your obstructive and obnoxious viewpoint is a troll, or worse.

And IMCista - if indymedia is important to the anti-capitalist movement then its admins have a great degree of power (eg a syndicated article from Bristol IMC was hidden last week because it was a direct criticism of IMC UK). To deny that control of a media outlet entails power is a pretty bizarre assertion for an "imcista" to make.

bob


Why carry lies?

18.02.2013 13:08

(eg a syndicated article from Bristol IMC was hidden last week because it was a direct criticism of IMC UK)

Hidden as inaccurate - the whole thread was a troll - complete with a pretend meeting and the establishment of a secret group who will build a transparent Indymedia.

Why should we carry lies about ourselves Bob?

And if you insist they are true, then point us to the anti-Semitic and truther posts Bob. I'll unhide the post if you can, so far no-one has.

The post can still be read - but it isn't going to be in the newswire if its not true. So where is the power?

IMCista


contradiction city

18.02.2013 13:47

So we have both 'you can publish anything you want' and 'you can't publish anything you want.'

We also have both 'Indymedia is responsible for every good thing over the last decade' and 'Indymedia has no power.'

And we have 'then point us to the anti-Semitic and truther posts Bob' and the fact that you hide any posts that do point them out.

Just another day in Indymedia: contradiction city.

"Remind us what power we have McBadBad."

You have the domain and servers you nicked in the great password coup of May 2011, for one.

does not compute


like this?

18.02.2013 14:08

'then point us to the anti-Semitic'

Here you go then -

 https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/01/505178.html?c=all

The comments demonstrated the antisemitic nature of the post, which supports the antisemitic view that perhaps the Jews faked their own Holocaust.

The Indymedia UK reaction was to hide, not the post, but the comments showing the post was antisemitic.

#antiracismfail

punkt aus


@imcista

18.02.2013 15:28

Why don't you answer criticism instead of exploiting your privileged position and hiding it away?

Regardless of how you choose to wield it, power is power. If you have a login which enables you to moderate comments and articles, you have power. Denying the existence of hierarchy is a mechanism by which it becomes entrenched. Of course, if indymedia is to work, it needs to be moderated, because of the amount of crap which gets posted. But this task is a very serious responsibility. You have the opportunity to stifle criticism, and whether you take that opportunity or not, to see you denying the inherent power of your position is unsettling.

You say that the post you censored contained lies about you. I hope you won't remove this comment if I quote the relevant section:

"Notts Indymedia are currently trying to understand the problem and it seems that there is a realisation that Indymedia has fallen behind new media like Facebook and Twitter, is not always viewed as welcoming to new people and is seen by many as closely aligned with the 911 Truth movement and Antisemitism."

This is the only part of the original posting which mentioned anti-semitism or truthers. It simply states that this is a perception which some people have, rather than making allegations. Whether or not this perception is true, it is a problem, because this perception damages indymedia and, more importantly, the movement as a whole.

Beyond this there was nothing controversial, just a shorter post along the same lines as the OP of this thread. It can still be accessed on the bristol newswire, in case anyone missed it, under the title "Fragmentation - how to stop the rot of Indymedia in the UK". There was no call for a meeting or a "secret group".

It also says

"... the Mayday group that uses the Indymedia UK name are running that site into the ground."

I would suggest that this is the reason that it was hidden. It wasn't a troll, it was very clearly a genuine post expressing feelings which seem to me to be widespread, Because it was critical of you, however, it was censored for being untrue.

bob


I agree the trolling is really stupid misinformation

18.02.2013 16:41

Simon I agree the same memes crop up all the time with this troll

It's pure misinformation, anyone who was involved in May 2011 would know that.

The troll should just bugger off. Go and do something usefull and positive instead of trying to stir shit and trying to demoralize people. It won't wash the gateway 202 and 303 posts showed how these dumb asses operate

Clara Bell


Fuck Off Troll

18.02.2013 16:50

@The Troll
Fuck Off Troll

Simon


Having guts.

18.02.2013 17:57

You want an answer Bob - email the list.


If you can't be arsed to use the correct forum then don't expect people to jump through your hoops.

IMCista


In the kangaroo court of IMC uk comments...

18.02.2013 18:16

contradiction city (291962) by: does not compute

"So we have both 'you can publish anything you want' and 'you can't publish anything you want.'

Yes - you can publish anything you want - but if it breaches the guidelines it will be hidden.

Take for example anti-Semitism - its clear that there are users who want stringent censorship.##

So far, one example is produced: https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/01/505178.html?c=all

and we are told:

"The comments demonstrated the antisemitic nature of the post, which supports the antisemitic view that perhaps the Jews faked their own Holocaust."

Is there anti-Semitism in the post, or not? The comments are not in the post - which was originally hidden because it was posted without acknowledgement of the authorship. Hence the first sentence:

"Please do not hide the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee for any spurious reasons now ... "

But the post is about freedom of expression and if there is anti-Semitism in the comments, then it is the comments that should be hidden.

Next there are posts cited that are by people who have nothing to do with Indymedia, on a site which is nothing to do with Indymedia - and the relevance of this is what?

Indymedia is an open publishing site which hides posts which breach the guidelines. It has no veto over the moderation policies of another site, which does not belong to ftp or any other IMCista.

So all we seem to have there is guilt by association.

The thread is being trolled, and it is pointless trying to reason with anonymous trolls. So, if you want to discuss it use the lists.



IMCista


Same memes

18.02.2013 18:17

Same Bullshit

deLiberation is what? Jew Hating?

Are you by any chance of the Jewish persuasion?
All religious types have the god delusion, you into that ? I'm not a 'believer' in that ruling class bullshit are you?

Some one pointed to the Paul Eisen "I love Zundel" article on that site,

I watched some videos of Zundel one interview with an Israeli Journalist,

Zundel is no better than the Zionist Nationalists is he? Zundel Admires Hitler. Zionists admire Sharon both murdering war criminals who engaged in genocide.

Paul Eisen is a twat, but he doesn't post to IMC UK though does he? So trying the guilt by association trip don't bother me , there's no evidence that ftp is an anti-semite, just because Paul Eisen and other crazies post to deLiberation don't prove your point. It's smear smear and more smear the usual troll fare.
All the other stuff about theft of the site don't really fit with me 'property is theft' ideology stolen? off who exactly?

Bunch of liberal half wits taken in by the Canadian super kid with his shiny new CMS, who for his day job wrote WEBCAMERON for the Tories among other corporate nasties. Where is he now? Be the Media? ok just do it stop wasting time? get on with it.




Simon


This is macabre but fascinating

18.02.2013 19:41

From an onlooker...

While many of the comments flying back and forth should really be in the privacy of an internal list let alone one-to-one communication, this dialogue on the newswire does answer some questions for the outsider about what happened to Indymedia. But whether the concept itself has any life left in it is a different issue to how badly broken-down the dynamic within the IMC UK group became. The bickering is appalling and illustrates long-standing unresolvable arguments.

That said - this dialogue sadly lacks any proper dialogue about why or whether the Indymedia concept has a place in the current situation, or what it can do in the age of social networking. Instead of debating any valid points the original article had, that fact that it was posted at all just seemed to press a load of peoples' buttons.

Because of course, it's not like these new corporate social networking things have made Indymedia redundant: they may be superficially slicker, but they've introduced huge security/surveillance problems, and to use them at all is a capitulation to the privatised internet.

I personally don't think that the idea of a place where people can post anonymously is suddenly irrelevant because of fucking Twitter and FB (then again web traffic drying up tells another story).

As another person who's followed and posted on Indymedia since day one, I guess I'm watching it founder and wondering when the new fucking-pissed-off post-austerity generation are going to stand up and unleash new movements of resistance and of course they'll need to create their own media - and how different to Indymedia will that be?

Armchair Pundit


all right there

18.02.2013 19:43

all right there

18.02.2013 19:40
"Is there anti-Semitism in the post, or not?"

Yes, it is an anti-Semitic post. It treats an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory pseudo-history of WWII as if it were an actual academic historical possibility rather than the noxious belches of anti-Semitic fantasists, most of whom did not disguise that their intent in making that shit up was to exonerate Hitler.

This is the bullshit you're protecting. Does it make you happy to protect anti-Semitic bullshit, Indymedia UK, or is just a reflex by now?

"deLiberation is what? Jew Hating?"

Exactamente. Your defense of Zundel - who made his dosh printing and smuggling German-language neo-Nazi propaganda into Germany - isn't helping you a bit in trying to demonstrate it's not an anti-Semitic site. Zundel is the only Holocaust denier better known in the world than David Irving, the site calls him a hero, and ftp is okay with that going on on the "anti-Zionist" site he co-founded.

Name an anti-Semitic idea that isn't championed somewhere on the site. Holocaust denial? Jew bankers running the world? Jews owning the media? Jewish plot to take over the UK? It's all there and more.

But "far-right anti-Semitic fascism on my site - so what," says ftp, "as long as Gilad Atzmon still strokes my hair fondly. *Sigh!*"

got yer answers

got yer answers


Quote the text?

18.02.2013 19:57

all right there (292007) by: got yer answers
all right there

"Yes, it is an anti-Semitic post. It treats an anti-Jewish conspiracy theory pseudo-history of WWII as if it were an actual academic historical possibility rather than the noxious belches of anti-Semitic fantasists,"

Well, that's your interpretation -please quote the anti-semitic passages in the text.

IMCista


Liar Liar Pants on fire

18.02.2013 22:05

Zundel is a Nationalistic idiot there was no "defence of Zundel" there Zundel is as much as an idiot as yer average Zionist or any other dope Nationalist.

Troll Troll Troll

Fuck off

Simon


@Armchair Pundit

19.02.2013 15:19

To my mind there is a very real need for something that very closely resembles Indymedia, from a privacy point of view, but also because users of social media sites are trapped within a bubble partially of their own creation. They see what their friends and other people like themselves see, but everything else passes under their radar. A site like Indymedia which acts as a central hub for news and discussion is vital for disseminating information beyond your close circle of friends, and also leads to cross pollination. You visit the site looking for information about climate change activism, and end up reading a piece about animal rights.



I think this thread demonstrates that some of the weaknesses inherent in any online service haven't been avoided by Indymedia. The lack of face-to-face interaction means that people are far more aggressive than they would be normally. Their is a lack of accountability, both for posters and moderators, which wouldn't be tolerated in any other radical community. Of course, this is a side-effect of anonymity and so there's no real way round it, at least as far as posting articles and comments goes. Its really sad to see people who presumably became involved in the IMC project beause of anarchistic ideals acting in such an oppressive and childish way. I think that any future independant media project would have to carefully consider their decision making processes and their mechanisms for complaints and accountability. Indymedia UK (on the evidence of this thread alone) stands as a terrifying example of an idealistic project gone horribly wrong.

By the way, the above is my opinion. I'm not making any assertions or allegations. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever to hide this comment.

bob


@Bob

19.02.2013 17:05

Thanks Bob
I appreciate that someone stepped away from internal 'discussions' to answer some of the questions I (and probably many onlookers) have.

Yep I think it's a good point about Indymedia being a hub where people can encounter a range of stuff outside their own sphere of activity. In that way it can function in a similar way to other news sites - eg - you visit to see an array of stuff all brought together on the one site. It's as though Twitter, FB and atomised bloggers have made this a redundant concept but that's ridiculous.

If Indymedia traffic is down, and people are all over at FB, well in fact that doesn't speak of the irrelevance of Indymedia, but it's about people being lazy, with a herd mentality - 'my friends are doing it so will I' - they are sleepwalking into a surveillance nightmare seduced by convenience. However things move very fast on the web and this is just what's going on at the moment - in 5 years time it might be something else.

Having said that - when that new post-austerity generation ups the ante and unleashes a tidal wave of movements and necessarily creates a new form of autonomous media, then perhaps it will take a lot of Indymedia ideas, and combine them with secure/encrypted versions of social networking ideas.

Your other comment that this thread shows the problems of running collectives without face-to-face interaction is absolutely spot-on. I guess that was another 'frontier' aspect to Indymedia - it introduced new ways of working - eg - decentralised networks of non-hierarchies whose primary form of communication is online (perhaps younger people are far more used to working like this by now). And anonymous Open Publishing was always going to be open to trolls, nutters etc. The people who end up creating the successor to Indymedia will also have to learn from these lessons.

That said - I'm talking as though Indymedia is nearly over, when it may just be having a lean patch. Hypothetically, and it's probably not possible, but if only a whole new collective could take over Indymedia UK, starting from scratch and removing all the schisms and long-term problems, and they could introduce encrypted social networking ideas or whatever was necessary. But maybe it can't be like that, and the new people will have to start from scratch.

Armchair Pundit