Bristol Indymedia and "the world we are striving to create"
freethepeeps aka Roy Bard | 27.06.2013 01:11 | Indymedia
"Bristol indymedia is intended to represent the world we are striving to create, rather than the world we live in".
Fine words indeed, but do they mean anything?
Thanks to our most prolific troll, tensions between Bristol Indymedia and this site are once again on the agenda. Their recent article Indymedia UK : It’s time to move on has not gone the same way as another recent article Syria - a call to action, which was hidden as "Not Bristol Related" despite the fictitious claim that it was authored by a Bristolian.
Nor have the Bristol mods hidden an article which falsely claims that"a petition from hundreds of Bristol people making clear we regard Julian as a hero of the people who deserves unqualified support" was delivered to the Ecuadorian Embassy. Referring to that article, one IMC uk mod noted:
"The comments section is peppered with posts clearly submitted by trolls. I strongly suspect that the original post was put up for this purpose - to provide a vehicle for subsequent trolling".
So, why does Bristol IMC hide some lies and not others? In theory it should be easy to find out. As an affiliated IMC, they have signed up to the Indymedia Principles of Unity (POU) which includes the principle that;
All IMC's recognize the importance of process to social change and are committed to the development of non-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian relationships, from interpersonal relationships to group dynamics. Therefore, shall organize themselves collectively and be committed to the principle of consensus decision making and the development of a direct, participatory democratic process] that is transparent to its membership.
Yet emails go ignored, decisions are not explained and their list, unlike that of by far the majority of Indymedia lists remains closed, so that it is not possible to read the archives if you are not signed up to the list.
"This is a closed list, which means your subscription will be held for approval. You will be notified of the list moderator's decision by email. This is also a hidden list, which means that the list of members is available only to the list administrator".
It is surely a cause for reflection, to wonder how a project dedicated to Open Publishing has allowed itself to become a closed group who operate without transparency, and who seem to have a liking for trolling and invented news. It would also be more in line with the POU if they fixed their hidden functions, so that it is possible to view articles and comments that have been hidden. But despite it being pointed out for years that the system is not transparent, no explanation is given and the malfunction continues.
IMC uk strives to check the veracity of posts to the wire, and will not knowingly let lies stay up as news. Our lists remain open, and we are open to discussing concerns that people may have about the way we mod, so long as the discussions take place on the appropriate list. This is therefore an invitation to Bristol IMC to reflect on what they are doing and to engage in a discussion about how to deal with the trolling, so that the news wires can indeed focus on representing the world we are striving to create.
freethepeeps aka Roy Bard
Additions
Articles now hidden
27.06.2013 23:27
@22:46 on the Bristol thread, 'One of Bristol IMC' wrote: "Hi FTP I just checked the email list moderation queue for the first time in weeks. I have approved your emails now and will take a look at the posts you have issue with"
The Indymedia UK : It’s time to move on has now been hidden with the reason given as "Accuracy. Not by BTM, not hidden on http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/02/506637.html", and the Bristol support for Julian Assange article has also been hidden, with the reason given as "Accuracy"
.
freethepeeps
Comments
Hide 16 hidden comments or hide all comments
Not helping the tensions
27.06.2013 07:29
Just saying
@Just saying
27.06.2013 08:04
Attempts were made to communicate directly with Bindy mods via their closed list, and they were told that an article would appear on the newswire if they didn't respond:
freethepeeps at riseup.net freethepeeps at riseup.net
Tue Jun 25 18:11:25 BST 2013
"If Bindy leaves this up - then I will post directly to the IMC uk newswire
about it, as the closed list at Bristol means there is NO TRANSPARENCY and
therefore no way of working out what Bindy mods are doing....."
freethepeeps at riseup.net freethepeeps at riseup.net
Tue Jun 25 20:55:48 BST 2013
"If the troll is to be allowed to bring the dispute out onto the boards,
then it isn't just Bristol that is affected......."
freethepeeps at riseup.net freethepeeps at riseup.net
Wed Jun 26 11:00:42 BST 2013
"Well, they have hidden the imperialistic propaganda, yet appear to have
chosen to keep up the article attributed to btm - and clearly written by
2sam.
Perhaps they, like the troll relish the prospect of board wars.....
I am in the process of writing an article for our newswire - along the
lines of "Bindymedia - the go to site for smears, lies and invented news"
freethepeeps at riseup.net freethepeeps at riseup.net
Wed Jun 26 23:10:08 BST 2013
"ok - so now they have fixed their contact page and publishing, but still
the article remains up.
Will publish my article tomorrow.
Of course the discussion should be taking place on list but they seem
determined to have it on the news-wire, so I guess I'll have to oblige"
Furthermore, this isn't the first time that Bindy have kept up false attacks on IMC uk
See the thread "Trolling on Bristol Indymedia" here:
You got any better suggestions?
freethepeeps aka Roy Bard
really ?
27.06.2013 09:31
we had all this mutual muckraking months ago, time to move on.
bigger issues to worry about
The views of Bristol people to your advice
27.06.2013 10:17
Seems like you are the person with the problem, why not spend your time and energy working out why there are so few contributions to Indymedia these days.
Saying a bit more
Meh, give me sunshine instead.
27.06.2013 11:11
Lets have a revolution instead.
anon e-mouse.
attempts were made...?
27.06.2013 15:36
Having said all that, it does annoy me too when some IMCs have closed list archives - only really justifiable for a few specific lists (eg legal, contact) in my opinion.
anonymous
re: attempts were made
27.06.2013 15:41
If you want to see some of them then read the thread "more trolling on Bristol MC" from here:
keep clicking 'next message' till you're finished.
This is simply a repeat of that......
freethepeeps
re: attempts were made
27.06.2013 16:23
I can understand your frustration with how long it took for them to get hidden, especially since they were spreading malicious lies about IMC UK admins.
But I still don't really see how the Dec incident, in which the disinfo was (eventually!) hidden, means that it's fair to only give BIMC less than 48hrs notice this time round, before going public?
I mean, I can see how it creates a context in which you would find it hard to assume good faith, but if you're serious about avoiding a public conflict it still seems fairer to allow more time for a reply.
Indymedia as a concept and a movement is bigger than any one IMC. Petty fights like this are exactly what 2sam and co want.
anonymous
plenty of time to act/reply
27.06.2013 16:52
i've had no response whatsoever and no moderator action has been taken to deal with either this inaccurate post or the obvious trolling of the comments thread.
when i sent an email on 25 june
i got an automated response to say that my message had been held for moderation and:
"Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision."
i've still had no response, the post is still up, the comments are all still there.
genny
But its not fair :-(
27.06.2013 16:58
It isn't just 2 days - the Assange lie petition was posted on June 18th.
Requests to hide or explain reasons for not hiding were ignored:
As you note they took time last time, this time they might take just as long, but its not as if they' ve been inactive and haven't seen the messages:
And the issues are EXACTLY the same as they were in November/December. They're quick enough to hide other stuff as 'non sw related' - so how is a Notts Indymedia article from January news, and how is it 'sw related'? How is the lie about the Assange petition news and why is it still up?#
They might like to leave the smears up in public for a month while they dilly-dally about - but they then have to deal with threads like this. I'm predicting it won't last a month on their site...... because my main point is they lack transparency - so unless they engage with the thread we'll never know.
freethepeeps
hmm OK
27.06.2013 17:07
OK, fair enough. The 2 day figure just came from the email excerpts posted from ftp - I had no idea that people had contacted them before that.
I'm still left with the feeling that this all just plays into 2sam's hands though, but I can see where you're coming from.
anonymous
where I'm coming from
27.06.2013 17:14
And the problem has simply gone away.
On Bristol they fester gathering troll comments for weeks, and then the whole cycle gets repeated. So, where I'm coming from is that I am looking for a resolution that is in accordance with the POU.
And the opportunity to spend all of our time doing more fruitful stuff would be good.
freethepeeps
one question
27.06.2013 23:29
A: No. Not even close.
simple enough
Hidden comments on this thread
28.06.2013 00:02
really ? has been hidden as non news/complaint about moderation/disruptive poster. The views of Bristol people to your advice has been hidden as non news/inaccurate/disruptive poster - the poster does not explain how they are qualified to speak on behalf of 'Bristol people' - nor do they address the issue that a number of the comments come from the same person. one question has been hidden as non news/personal attack.
The Editorial Guidelines note that "Comments are subject to the guidelines for hiding". If you are unhappy with these decisions then feel free to raise them on the appropriate list.
Perhaps that is why this thread is more pleasant that the corresponding one on Bindy, which despite its aim to "represent the world we are striving to create, rather than the world we live in", seems to be ignoring it's own respect guideline. The troll may well be feeding their egos - but they are mistaken if they think it really is a friend of Bindy.
Edited to add: Bristol has now hidden the article under the pretext of "banned user" - so the comments are no longer viewable, although some of them were hidden separately. Nothing has been done transparently.
freethepeeps
One rule for some and one rule for the rest?
28.06.2013 12:01
Why then, does FTP complain when an article and/or comments that complain about moderation on BIM are hidden?
It strikes me as hypocrisy at its finest
Me, just me.
simple rule
28.06.2013 12:32
not ftp
@Me, just me.
28.06.2013 12:32
The issue with Bristol is that they are allowing their site to be used as a platform for obvious trolling and attacks on another site. So feel free to point out where the hypocrisy is.
Bristol IMC refuse to engage on their list and now they refuse on the wire as well. No-one at IMC uk is refusing to engage, but neither are we going to allow threads to be abused or turned into smear attacks by people who cannot be arsed to try and use the appropriate channel, which after all is publicly archived and can be linked to.
If you cannot be bothered to contact the list, then just stop wasting our time and yours, because further comments complaining about moderation or containing unsubstantiated attacks will quite simply go the way of the others and be hidden, like the most recent ones just were - one as non news, the other as a complaint about moderation.
freethepeeps
not surprising
28.06.2013 12:34
FTP finds a thread in which people are not free to note his deep editorial malfeasance "more pleasant" then one in which they are.
FTP in a nutshell.
still not ftp
Are you actually unable to read ftp?
28.06.2013 12:54
Let me put this as simply as I can.
You complain when BIM takes down an article penned by you that criticises the moderation on the site.
At the same time you hide comments that complain about moderation on UKIM.
You cannot do both without being hypocritical.
Oh, and just a thought, when you complained about the Assange article and its accuracy, why were the BIM moderators supposed to take your statement re inaccuracy as 100% accurate in itself. It could, after all, have been an attempt to get an article removed that was true but that you disagreed with. I would rather that they spent time verifying the accuracy of the article themselves (after you *suggested* that it was inaccurate) and made a decision for themselves rather than relying on one complaint to make a decision.
me again
I can read fine thanks. Can you?
28.06.2013 13:21
I have linked to the editorial guidelines - I have pointed you to the appropriate list. Here is the specific bit of the guidelines that is relevant to hiding posts complaining about moderation, which was agreed at a network meeting long before the split (and I have emphasised the fact that it was agreed they would be hidden).
You write:
So, we are talking about two different sites, each run by different collectives who are autonomous. Each have their own guidelines. Here is the link to Bindy's guidelines - I can see nothing resembling our guideline that refers to complaints about moderation. If you can, then quote it. My first instinct was to use their system and I emailed the list several times, in the past I have also used their contact form, as have other indymedia uk mods. However, neither elicited a response, and the troll-fest attacking this site was allowed to sit there and fester. So as their own system doesn't work, because they have a closed list, and claim not to check it for weeks, and they don't respond to the contact form, I did as I informed them I would do, and wrote an article for the newswire.
If I was refusing to use their system and ignoring their guideline about complaints about moderation, then I would be being hypocritical.
You also note that:
The fact is this, Indymedia uk has been extensively trolled over a number of years and complete lies have been posted. This has led to a tightening up of moderation, and a tendency to check claims that don't seem credible. There are campaigns doing real solidarity work for Assange, Manning and now Snowden, and they do post to our site. That report did not ring true (eg lack of photo and text of the petition), and therefore it was checked out with a solidarity group, who were able to check with the Embassy. As Bristol has now hidden the article citing 'Accuracy', it seems they decided that the claim that a petition was handed in was not true. Meanwhile the troll-fest the complete lie provoked, sat up for over a week.
I'm now waiting for you to confirm whether of not you have found a relevant Bristol guideline which outlines that all moderation complaints should be posted to their list, and a suggestion about what you think should be done if they then fail to respond to those complaints made in accordance with their own system. Otherwise your charge of hypocrisy is simply wrong.....
Edited to add: Your response was a moderation issue and I have posted it to the list, with a response. No more moderation issues will be discussed here, and it has been hidden as a complaint about moderation/non news. You are simply wasting your time and mine if you choose not to engage with the list - and indeed being a hypocrite!
freethepeeps
hypocrisy
28.06.2013 13:57
1) X states that in his house alcohol is banned because drinking is bad and actively ensures that no one drinks in his house.
2) X goes to someone elses house and get hammered.
X is a hypocrite.
Compare to this:
1) ftp states that on his website the newswire is no place for moderation dicussions (and believes in this so much that a rule is created to enforce it)
2) ftp goes to someone else's website and posts a complaint about moderation on their newswire.
Here's something from BIM
"Participants are welcome to notify the volunteer collective of any articles they feel should be hidden through contacting [hyperlinked to contact form] us."
Which, one might suggest, implies that accessing the newswire for the purpose is not the way to go.
As for your constant slagging of BIM, I can only assume that you are attempting to discredit BIM in order to encourage visitors to your (somewhat inferior) site.
me
How very open
28.06.2013 14:25
me
Are you a troll?
28.06.2013 14:45
If you want to allege that I have deleted a comment then that is a moderation issue and should be taken to the list, whose readers can check the logs.
freethepeeps
This is how BIM hears your comments
28.06.2013 15:25
[personal attack - removed to internal comments]
Me
troll shite hidden
28.06.2013 17:36
freethepeeps
roy bard's indymedia
01.07.2013 22:48
The FTP Guide To Building Independent Media
Oh not so good apparently.
numbers
Now it's you
04.07.2013 17:07
Your post slagging another Indymedia remains up.
Do the math. Just maybe, Indymedia UK has a reputation that it's earned.
fair is fair
Hide 16 hidden comments or hide all comments