DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
what's good about it and what's bad...
how can it be improved? can it be improved?
discuss.
how can it be improved? can it be improved?
discuss.
the global INDYMEDIA project: the good, the bad and the ugly...
- Thread starter DaveCinzano
- Start date
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
note:
this thread is meant for discussion of the whole nature and network of IMC.
please keep bristol indymedia-specific stuff to, um, the many bim threads
this thread is meant for discussion of the whole nature and network of IMC.
please keep bristol indymedia-specific stuff to, um, the many bim threads
This is an interesting and reasonably balanced article on Indymedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
keep it sensible, chaps. there is no such edit tag on the wiki entry for indymedia.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
sihhi said:
Haven't heard of this one, but it does raise some important questions. Even if IMC don't store IP logs, the police are provided with a valuable method of communicating with, in this case, a murderer. It is often considered as a priority by the police to establish some kind of contact with an individual who appears to be edging on a serial killing spree. Any fragment of information at this stage of a police investigation becomes vital.
If the police take down an IMC, find there are no retrievable logs, all they have achieved is to destroy a vital thread of communication with that individual they wished to apprehend.
So what should an IMC do. Delete the article? removing valuable evidence in a murder. Or should it stay up so that the police can keep watching, and asking questions in the comments to try and gain extra fragments of information?
How should IMC themselves view these posts which profess a political angle, even when an act of murder has been committed. Is is not news when it comes from the horse's mouth? and does it only become news if the very same event is instead reported by a third person?
There are a lot more questions within this bundle I'm sure.
steeplejack
trapped lbw for a duck
I enjoy reading the various Indymedia sites and reports from time to time, and there's no doubt it's a valubale and worthwhile project, which does a good job keeping activists in touch and filtering out some of the more hysterical ramblings of the mainstream media...
but
and maybe I;m being unfair, but it'd be very interesting to see the readership demogrpahics of the various IM sites. It's hard to escape the impression that they;re read only by the converted anyway, and that the role they could have in challenging political consesus is thereby negated.
It seems, if my suspicions are right, that IM needs to do a lot more to get non-activist/politico readers on board. knowledge of the G8 outwith activist circles seems to be low...on a football board I read up here there's been much talk of 'hippies causing the police trouble' etc, which says it all about the low level of public knowledge or symapthy for some of the issues IM campaigns on (and the success of print & broadcast media's fairly hysterical suggestions that hordes of unspecified 'anarchists' are coming to scotland to cause mayhem.).
That said, I find it a very interesting read & discussion and hopefully it can develop further in years to come.
but
and maybe I;m being unfair, but it'd be very interesting to see the readership demogrpahics of the various IM sites. It's hard to escape the impression that they;re read only by the converted anyway, and that the role they could have in challenging political consesus is thereby negated.
It seems, if my suspicions are right, that IM needs to do a lot more to get non-activist/politico readers on board. knowledge of the G8 outwith activist circles seems to be low...on a football board I read up here there's been much talk of 'hippies causing the police trouble' etc, which says it all about the low level of public knowledge or symapthy for some of the issues IM campaigns on (and the success of print & broadcast media's fairly hysterical suggestions that hordes of unspecified 'anarchists' are coming to scotland to cause mayhem.).
That said, I find it a very interesting read & discussion and hopefully it can develop further in years to come.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
OK - Cheers for starting this thread, KRS. 
Let me start with an analogy for the problem that recently occured regarding BIM, in the hope that by doing so we can see the technical issues more clearly without the need to debate the rights and wrongs of 'train-bricking' or reporting posts to the OB.
Let's assume that X is a racist extremist who has just thrown a firebomb through the window of his local newsagent. Thankfully, no-one was killed, but the shop was burned to the ground and the newsagent and his family are deeply traumatised.
X then goes on to brag about his actions on an 'open newswire' server, inciting others to repeat his act.
Now, I doubt that there are many people here who would becry the shopping of X to the old bill, or that would lament the charging and sentencing of such an individual.
Now let's assume that the server's owner is approached by the OB with a request for the IP details of X. The owner refuses to assist, the OB obtain a warrant and seize the server, arresting the owner.
Anyone here want to speak up for the server owner? Nah. Thought not.
And there lies the crunch.
'Freedom of speech' works both ways. With freedom comes responsibility. Someone has to take responsibility - either X, or the server owner if they are unwilling to provide the identity of X.
Should the server owner be unable to reveal the identity of X (as is supposed to be the case with IMC's) then the owner has nothing to fear (until legislation exists that makes IP logging on servers compulsory - as already exists for ISPs).
True, there are forensic methods that could be employed in an attempt to recover data (IP logs) from a hard disk once 'deleted', but there are various technical ways around this.
-
The thing is, if you have a single physical server owned by an individual, company or group, you have a litigable entity. There is always going to have to be one person with whom the buck stops. The owner of this server (editor) is accutely aware of this fact, hence the considerable time and effort expended by him and the moderating team ensuring that it doesn't become a problem.
Obviously, the personal beliefs/politics of a person or team responsible for moderation will be reflected in their moderation decisions - I can fully understand why an 'open newswire' would seek to avoid this.
One direction to look for an answer that could completely circumvent the 'problem' of having a sole, legal entity that can have it's door kicked in and server seized is to utilise a 'distributed' model along the lines of 'freenet'.
This removes entirely the need for a central server, therefore there is no door to be kicked in. The model is extremely robust.
One characteristic of the distributed model is that there can be *no* moderation or filtering other than that the user imposes upon themselves.
This would however leave the door wide open for X incite as much trouble as he wished.
I'll quote the freenet FAQ on that subject:
So that's one model for a truly 'open' newswire that avoids the problems of a 'legal' nature.
-
Back to the conventional model (single server) and it's attendant problems wrt moderation. As I've said above, human moderators will invariably bring their own prejudices to the job, plus you need to find individuals with enough time on their hands to perform the task effectively.
On top of that, you have the problem of who selects the moderators, etc.
Another avenue to explore with this in mind could be some form of 'user' or 'community' moderation, whereby other users 'rate' comments, with those that fall below a preset threshold disappear from view.
For an example of this, take a look at the Scoop engine - in use on kuro5hin.org and many other community sites.
-
Well, I hope that will give someone food for thought.
I'm not suggesting that any of this is the 'perfect' answer to the problems, but as I see it now, you've got the worst of all worlds - an admin on bail, poor mechanisms for removing 'undesireable content' and an admin team with their own prejudices.
Let me start with an analogy for the problem that recently occured regarding BIM, in the hope that by doing so we can see the technical issues more clearly without the need to debate the rights and wrongs of 'train-bricking' or reporting posts to the OB.
Let's assume that X is a racist extremist who has just thrown a firebomb through the window of his local newsagent. Thankfully, no-one was killed, but the shop was burned to the ground and the newsagent and his family are deeply traumatised.
X then goes on to brag about his actions on an 'open newswire' server, inciting others to repeat his act.
Now, I doubt that there are many people here who would becry the shopping of X to the old bill, or that would lament the charging and sentencing of such an individual.
Now let's assume that the server's owner is approached by the OB with a request for the IP details of X. The owner refuses to assist, the OB obtain a warrant and seize the server, arresting the owner.
Anyone here want to speak up for the server owner? Nah. Thought not.
And there lies the crunch.
'Freedom of speech' works both ways. With freedom comes responsibility. Someone has to take responsibility - either X, or the server owner if they are unwilling to provide the identity of X.
Should the server owner be unable to reveal the identity of X (as is supposed to be the case with IMC's) then the owner has nothing to fear (until legislation exists that makes IP logging on servers compulsory - as already exists for ISPs).
True, there are forensic methods that could be employed in an attempt to recover data (IP logs) from a hard disk once 'deleted', but there are various technical ways around this.
-
The thing is, if you have a single physical server owned by an individual, company or group, you have a litigable entity. There is always going to have to be one person with whom the buck stops. The owner of this server (editor) is accutely aware of this fact, hence the considerable time and effort expended by him and the moderating team ensuring that it doesn't become a problem.
Obviously, the personal beliefs/politics of a person or team responsible for moderation will be reflected in their moderation decisions - I can fully understand why an 'open newswire' would seek to avoid this.
One direction to look for an answer that could completely circumvent the 'problem' of having a sole, legal entity that can have it's door kicked in and server seized is to utilise a 'distributed' model along the lines of 'freenet'.
This removes entirely the need for a central server, therefore there is no door to be kicked in. The model is extremely robust.
One characteristic of the distributed model is that there can be *no* moderation or filtering other than that the user imposes upon themselves.
This would however leave the door wide open for X incite as much trouble as he wished.
I'll quote the freenet FAQ on that subject:
So that's one model for a truly 'open' newswire that avoids the problems of a 'legal' nature.
-
Back to the conventional model (single server) and it's attendant problems wrt moderation. As I've said above, human moderators will invariably bring their own prejudices to the job, plus you need to find individuals with enough time on their hands to perform the task effectively.
On top of that, you have the problem of who selects the moderators, etc.
Another avenue to explore with this in mind could be some form of 'user' or 'community' moderation, whereby other users 'rate' comments, with those that fall below a preset threshold disappear from view.
For an example of this, take a look at the Scoop engine - in use on kuro5hin.org and many other community sites.
-
Well, I hope that will give someone food for thought.
I'm not suggesting that any of this is the 'perfect' answer to the problems, but as I see it now, you've got the worst of all worlds - an admin on bail, poor mechanisms for removing 'undesireable content' and an admin team with their own prejudices.
My feeling is that Indymedia was a good idea but never quite developed beyond that.
Whatever role Indymedia is intended to play I think it's been overtaken by talkboards, blogs, wikipedia, email lists and personal websites.
These offer a whole range of choices to the people using them. Indymedia has a dogmatic, one-size-fits-all feel to it.
Whatever role Indymedia is intended to play I think it's been overtaken by talkboards, blogs, wikipedia, email lists and personal websites.
These offer a whole range of choices to the people using them. Indymedia has a dogmatic, one-size-fits-all feel to it.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
If people don't respect this, PM me and I'll delete any offending posts.bristle-krs said:please keep bristol indymedia-specific stuff to, um, the many bim threads
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
There's a short film entitled 'Seize the Media' all about the RackSpace / IM server seizures, made by someone from IM Poland:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/01/303547.mov
It raises the same questions regarding the vulnerabilities inherent in the centralised network topography, as well as echoing some of inks' observations.
Is there any way I can find out roughly how much IM has had to spend on legal costs?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2005/01/303547.mov
It raises the same questions regarding the vulnerabilities inherent in the centralised network topography, as well as echoing some of inks' observations.
Is there any way I can find out roughly how much IM has had to spend on legal costs?
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
sihhi said:
Agreed, I trust bloggers more than half the shit written on there...
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
I'm starting to suspect that part of the reason why some 'collective members' involved in IM might be biased away from a distributed model (see freenet above) stems from the way IM evolved as a technocracy, with a heirachy that is resistant to anything that might undermine (or completely remove) their percieved (mainly by themselves) position of authourity.
Which is all rather sad, really.
Which is all rather sad, really.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
The more I look, the more I find other people have been making the same suggestions with regard to the IM network topography:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/315042.html
There are other good suggestions and ideas laying unanswered between the appeals for money for legal costs and helpful posts from munkeeunit.
-
One thing I am confused about is this issue of whether IM servers log IP addresses. I am told that they do not, yet I find many references that would suggest otherwise.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/06/315042.html
There are other good suggestions and ideas laying unanswered between the appeals for money for legal costs and helpful posts from munkeeunit.
-
One thing I am confused about is this issue of whether IM servers log IP addresses. I am told that they do not, yet I find many references that would suggest otherwise.
Rob Ray
Weight is meaningless
THE coverage of the G8 protests from online news provider Indymedia, both UK and abroad, will come in for alot of flak this week, just as it has for its coverage of most major events.
The major problem from the point of view of journalists is the very strength that has made Indymedia so successful in the first place - its open publishing remit.
Anyone who wants to can post their news, which will go in unabridged and rarely faces any kind of editorial code of conduct.
This has led to an explosion of sites over the past few years from enthusiastic socialist and libertarian groups, covering the (many) excesses and brutalities of capitalism.
The project has found a ready market on the left wing, who have been noticably short of an organised media source of news for the best part of 50 years in the UK alone.
On the face of it, Indymedia has been a spectacular success, for anarchist organising principles in particular and the left wing in general. It has covered some massive stories which have remained hidden by the mainstream press, such as the massive havoc wreaked by the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, water and gas riots in Bolivia, the Zapatist revolution in Mexico.
However, the project's limits have quickly become all-too apparent, partiularly in the UK.
This has left the various groups open to severe criticism from right wingers in particular, but also from liberals, and even from the organisation's natural left-wing support base. Most of the criticisms have a real base in fact.
The lack of journalistic skills evidently is a major factor. While open 'DIY journalism' content can and should be part of it, the main features on the front page in particular need to be able to stand alongside the professionalism of CNN, Guardian Unlimited etc. Currently they aren't. Not even close. The structuring of the reporting is poor, the questions asked are openly agenda-led and worse than either, in most cases no right to reply is given.
On the sidebar of 'publish your own news', that would be forgivable - it is tacitly understood I think that the minor news stories should be taken as they are intended, one-off, one person reports which may or may not be accurate and it's up to you to judge. Having these same failings on the front page articles, which have supposedly been edited by the core collective however is not.
The right wing have been able to continually use this as a means to utterly discredit Indymedia as a news source, laying into the fact that many of the most regular posters talk about right-wing agenda setting while doing exactly the same thing themselves.
It's a fair point. As long as Indymedia continue to be led by untrained techies rather than news reporters who know what the hell they are doing, outreach will be fundamentally limited to people already convinced of capitalism's failings, and of those, only the sort of person who wants their (leftist) prejudices confirmed rather than those who want to be reliably informed of the latest events.
The open publishing system has also led in various cases to attacks from individual kooks, or more coherent groups posting spam to fill up the server and swamp real reports. There seems to be no real way of stopping this except via IP banning - by which time much of the damage has been done, and they will probably be back. Bristol Indymedia, currently the subject of legal proceedings after one poster allegedly confessed to a crime, leading to the servers being seized by police, is a good example.
The type of person able to spend the vast amounts of time necessary to run a national-level news website (less so on the regional ones) is also a major factor. Having acted as the editor of a fortnightly newspaper, I can authoritatively say it's bloody hard work - I regularly worked a 13 hour shift which bollocked me for my working week. How much more time do you need to run a daily website, along with the attendant activism, journalism and workshops that many of the UK site's core collective sem to get up to?
The answer is you can't. Something has to suffer. Either it's your job - in which case you have to 'drop out' of capitalism to do it, thus losing touch with most of the non-activist milieu, or it's the quality of your journalism. In this case, it appears to be both.
The combination of a drop-out core collective, along with everything else above, is not in any way an ideal situation with which to begin to revitalise the left and pull in non-activists. It is certainly not a good way to get yourself trusted and respected enough to challenge the mainstream media.
Suggestions:
Without doubt Indymedia is currently the only game in town for wide-spectrum, international media coverage of major events in a leftist manner. As its many fans have pointed out, the leftist bias of the group is a direct reaction to the rightist bas of others, and should, by a truly intelligent public, be understood to represent only one side of the argument.
However what we do not have, in this country or in any other western nation, is a public that reads heavily, obviously biased leftist material that contradicts what every other (respected, well funded, professional) newsgroup says and then takes it at face value.
If indymedia UK is to move forward, the standard of its frontline, regular journalism needs to be higher. The structuring needs to be tighter. The agenda needs to be less pronounced. There needs to be a right to reply ethos, and a conscious effort to check sources made.
The open content is a secondary concern, and with a disclaimer, I think can continue to be a good source even with its difficulties (though I'd like to see it divided up into 'regular' posters who get a preferential bit at the top of the page, and irregular, who start out at the bottom, this would minimise the amount of spam appearing while also allowing casual browsers to see the best stuff first.)
The focus also needs to be wider. Not in an international sense but in issues. I've seen a great deal (mostly opinon) about the G8 this week, but nothing about pensions, the Railtrack debacle, the UDM miners rip-off, the tunnel collapse set up by Tesco's attempt to build yet another supermarket there, all of which is still going on. This seems to be a recurring theme with Indymedia UK, that the moment there is any kind of protest, no matter how small, it gets massive front page coverage, while important issues which have no activist angle are ignored.
Finally the editorial team needs to retrain and I suspect, expand to include a wider range of people. They do a fantastic job, but it's an amateurish one and it's too focussed on a few core points.
Indymedia has done fantastically well up to now, and continues to expand apace internationally, but to get itself where it wants to be in the UK, it's the equivalent of stepping from the conference to the Premiership. It's a big leap, and it needs big changes.
The major problem from the point of view of journalists is the very strength that has made Indymedia so successful in the first place - its open publishing remit.
Anyone who wants to can post their news, which will go in unabridged and rarely faces any kind of editorial code of conduct.
This has led to an explosion of sites over the past few years from enthusiastic socialist and libertarian groups, covering the (many) excesses and brutalities of capitalism.
The project has found a ready market on the left wing, who have been noticably short of an organised media source of news for the best part of 50 years in the UK alone.
On the face of it, Indymedia has been a spectacular success, for anarchist organising principles in particular and the left wing in general. It has covered some massive stories which have remained hidden by the mainstream press, such as the massive havoc wreaked by the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, water and gas riots in Bolivia, the Zapatist revolution in Mexico.
However, the project's limits have quickly become all-too apparent, partiularly in the UK.
- Fatally for a news organisation aiming to tell the truth, many of the most frequent writers don't seem to know the basic skills needed to create a trustworthy news source.
- Their open publishing rule has allowed right wing attacks and spamming which have clogged up the real reporting that has been going on.
- The technical expertise required, the implicit need for a great deal of spare time on the part of the main editors and the desire/confidence to write your own news tends to be the preserve of the dropouts or the middle classes.
This has left the various groups open to severe criticism from right wingers in particular, but also from liberals, and even from the organisation's natural left-wing support base. Most of the criticisms have a real base in fact.
The lack of journalistic skills evidently is a major factor. While open 'DIY journalism' content can and should be part of it, the main features on the front page in particular need to be able to stand alongside the professionalism of CNN, Guardian Unlimited etc. Currently they aren't. Not even close. The structuring of the reporting is poor, the questions asked are openly agenda-led and worse than either, in most cases no right to reply is given.
On the sidebar of 'publish your own news', that would be forgivable - it is tacitly understood I think that the minor news stories should be taken as they are intended, one-off, one person reports which may or may not be accurate and it's up to you to judge. Having these same failings on the front page articles, which have supposedly been edited by the core collective however is not.
The right wing have been able to continually use this as a means to utterly discredit Indymedia as a news source, laying into the fact that many of the most regular posters talk about right-wing agenda setting while doing exactly the same thing themselves.
It's a fair point. As long as Indymedia continue to be led by untrained techies rather than news reporters who know what the hell they are doing, outreach will be fundamentally limited to people already convinced of capitalism's failings, and of those, only the sort of person who wants their (leftist) prejudices confirmed rather than those who want to be reliably informed of the latest events.
The open publishing system has also led in various cases to attacks from individual kooks, or more coherent groups posting spam to fill up the server and swamp real reports. There seems to be no real way of stopping this except via IP banning - by which time much of the damage has been done, and they will probably be back. Bristol Indymedia, currently the subject of legal proceedings after one poster allegedly confessed to a crime, leading to the servers being seized by police, is a good example.
The type of person able to spend the vast amounts of time necessary to run a national-level news website (less so on the regional ones) is also a major factor. Having acted as the editor of a fortnightly newspaper, I can authoritatively say it's bloody hard work - I regularly worked a 13 hour shift which bollocked me for my working week. How much more time do you need to run a daily website, along with the attendant activism, journalism and workshops that many of the UK site's core collective sem to get up to?
The answer is you can't. Something has to suffer. Either it's your job - in which case you have to 'drop out' of capitalism to do it, thus losing touch with most of the non-activist milieu, or it's the quality of your journalism. In this case, it appears to be both.
The combination of a drop-out core collective, along with everything else above, is not in any way an ideal situation with which to begin to revitalise the left and pull in non-activists. It is certainly not a good way to get yourself trusted and respected enough to challenge the mainstream media.
Suggestions:
Without doubt Indymedia is currently the only game in town for wide-spectrum, international media coverage of major events in a leftist manner. As its many fans have pointed out, the leftist bias of the group is a direct reaction to the rightist bas of others, and should, by a truly intelligent public, be understood to represent only one side of the argument.
However what we do not have, in this country or in any other western nation, is a public that reads heavily, obviously biased leftist material that contradicts what every other (respected, well funded, professional) newsgroup says and then takes it at face value.
If indymedia UK is to move forward, the standard of its frontline, regular journalism needs to be higher. The structuring needs to be tighter. The agenda needs to be less pronounced. There needs to be a right to reply ethos, and a conscious effort to check sources made.
The open content is a secondary concern, and with a disclaimer, I think can continue to be a good source even with its difficulties (though I'd like to see it divided up into 'regular' posters who get a preferential bit at the top of the page, and irregular, who start out at the bottom, this would minimise the amount of spam appearing while also allowing casual browsers to see the best stuff first.)
The focus also needs to be wider. Not in an international sense but in issues. I've seen a great deal (mostly opinon) about the G8 this week, but nothing about pensions, the Railtrack debacle, the UDM miners rip-off, the tunnel collapse set up by Tesco's attempt to build yet another supermarket there, all of which is still going on. This seems to be a recurring theme with Indymedia UK, that the moment there is any kind of protest, no matter how small, it gets massive front page coverage, while important issues which have no activist angle are ignored.
Finally the editorial team needs to retrain and I suspect, expand to include a wider range of people. They do a fantastic job, but it's an amateurish one and it's too focussed on a few core points.
Indymedia has done fantastically well up to now, and continues to expand apace internationally, but to get itself where it wants to be in the UK, it's the equivalent of stepping from the conference to the Premiership. It's a big leap, and it needs big changes.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
Backatcha Bandit said:
Hello Backatcha,
Just a relatively quick response for the minute.
I hope to get back to you all shortly on the IP issue, a new mini press statement is being preapared regarding this. Sorry, we do have to do this through more or less agreed statements, as it is a live legal issue, and I'm not going to blunder into anything, as I'm definitely not a techie, if for no other reason.
Just to remind you that we've already said that "IP addresses are not permantely stored." I can also say there is an IP deleting function. A little more later for you U75 people.
As for other issues of the IMC's in general. I'm quite happy to listen to all the feedback for the minute. I'm sure you've all got more (good, bad and ugly).
From a personal perspective, I got into this for the same reason that I'm into a number of things, such as producing what are generally recognised as very diverse Bristol STW newsletters (can't speak for the rest of the country mind, another very, very sore thumb!), and also setting up other diverse outlets like the Bristol Social Forum.
All these things, for all their flaws, are similar in the sense that they at least pertain to be a lot more inclusive as methods of communicating, than the average party / news outlet / partisan group. Of course I have my own views, but I do try very hard not to be partisan, as evidenced in all the things I do.
That's where I'm personally coming from.
(PS: I've got a lot to get on with, I'm very ill (long term) and trying to have a rest, so it would be great if people wouldn't keep repeating requests to answer stuff, as if I don't, because I do, just not always right away, sometimes a few days later, just like if I was sent stuff by snail mail. Thanks.)
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
I used to read IM but now just can't be bothered. There is no editorial control meaning that all sorts of halfwits can post without challenge. Because of the is hard to verify info and it is a godsend for those who want to spread misinformation.
It is quite frankly full of shit and is only read by the committed activst etc. Any form of alt media should really be aiming to get through to those who are outside of the loop of activists.
I last logged on to an IM site a few months ago and it seemed to be full of people taking pops at eachother on the comments and tinfoil hatted 'chemtrails' types.
It is quite frankly full of shit and is only read by the committed activst etc. Any form of alt media should really be aiming to get through to those who are outside of the loop of activists.
I last logged on to an IM site a few months ago and it seemed to be full of people taking pops at eachother on the comments and tinfoil hatted 'chemtrails' types.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Cheers for the response, MU.
I appreciate that you've got a lot on your plate at the moment, so I'll just make one small point for now if I may - hopefully to be answered in the 'mini press statement'.
According to the 'security' page on IMUK:
If IP addresses are not stored, what is there to delete with the 'IP deleting function'?
Similarly, if IP addresses are not stored, what possible advantage would there be in seizing an IM server, since the only information on that server is available publically online anyway?
OK, so a server might still be seized for the purpose of carrying out forensic tests in an attempt to recover IP logs - but since 'Indymedia UK does not log ip addresses', forensic efforts to recover something that apparently isn't and wasn't there will be fruitless, no?
So in that case, what on Earth is there to be gained for an IMC facing an invitation to 'assist inquiries' in claiming 'journalistic privilege' and stonewalling, when all they need to do is say 'Sorry, can't help you - Indymedia UK does not log ip addresses', then give them access to the server, safe in the knowledge that it makes no odds to anyone - perhaps even raise a smile that the OB are going to have to sit and read all those articles again?
-
If, on the otherhand, IP addresses are logged to disk (even for a split second), then the entire raison d'etre for the IM server goes up in a puff of logic.
I hope you understand the reasons for my confusion, here.
I look forward to a response.
I appreciate that you've got a lot on your plate at the moment, so I'll just make one small point for now if I may - hopefully to be answered in the 'mini press statement'.
munkeeunit said:
According to the 'security' page on IMUK:
If IP addresses are not stored, what is there to delete with the 'IP deleting function'?
Similarly, if IP addresses are not stored, what possible advantage would there be in seizing an IM server, since the only information on that server is available publically online anyway?
OK, so a server might still be seized for the purpose of carrying out forensic tests in an attempt to recover IP logs - but since 'Indymedia UK does not log ip addresses', forensic efforts to recover something that apparently isn't and wasn't there will be fruitless, no?
So in that case, what on Earth is there to be gained for an IMC facing an invitation to 'assist inquiries' in claiming 'journalistic privilege' and stonewalling, when all they need to do is say 'Sorry, can't help you - Indymedia UK does not log ip addresses', then give them access to the server, safe in the knowledge that it makes no odds to anyone - perhaps even raise a smile that the OB are going to have to sit and read all those articles again?
-
If, on the otherhand, IP addresses are logged to disk (even for a split second), then the entire raison d'etre for the IM server goes up in a puff of logic.
I hope you understand the reasons for my confusion, here.
I look forward to a response.
gawkrodger
Well-Known Member
KeyboardJockey said:
i was going to write it needs a strong editorial process to stop all the nutters posting but KJ has done it admirably
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
gawkrodger said:
Yes, I kind of agree, but how do you sort what's from the nutters, and hasn't IMC being criticised by the likes of Indymedia Watch, for hiding posts such as chemtrails? I think we'll always be up against a rock and a hard place to some extent on these issues, but I really do tire of the endless streams of posts with absolutely no sourcing of any kind whatsover, apart from maybe links back to other completely unsourced nut job conspiracies.
Maybe some of the solutions aren't that difficult, guidelines on sourcing articles, unless they're eyewitness accounts. Or another article stream, one for unsourced articles and the other for sourced. The 'hide' function sort of does this, but I don't think we'll ever escape the hypocrisy of known trolls screaming censorship on these issues! And sometimes, I imagine, people really do get 'censored', all because someone wrongly labeled them a nutter.
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
gawkrodger said:
In a world of corpulent and corporate media there is a dire need for an alternative news service that people can take seriously. IM doesn't fit this bill as it;
a) comes over all shouty shouty
b) there is a total lack of provanence to stories
c) has been hijacked by chemtrails tin foil hatters
d) is presented in a piss poor way
e) doesn't appear to connect with people.
Like it or not but most people (I'm speaking for the UK here) read the Sun and a tiny tiny minority read alternative news sources, or even the Guardian for that matter. The great challenge is how to present alternative news to a nation that is very familiar with the conventions of what could be called Mainstream media. The average person would look at IM and wouldn't know how to navigagte the site -- the tinfoil hatters just make this situation worse.
Agree with keyboardjockey broadly... I haven't read it in over a year. It's just filled with activisty shite with no connection to daily life. Sure there are the wackos as well but the action-focus is the main problem. Of course that just reflects the culture it's part of. In some countries it seems better than here...
KeyboardJockey
Clowns to the Left of me
icepick said:
I've briefly looked at other countries (South America fer instance) IM and it appeared to be much more 'newsy' rather than activist orientated.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
That short, additional statement I mentioned regarding BIM & IP addresses, has been posted on this thread, post #97
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=119986&page=4
I'm posting it there because it has been requested to try & keep this thread BIM free (or at least to a general discussion about IMCs, and not just more BIM stuff.)
Munkeeunit.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=119986&page=4
I'm posting it there because it has been requested to try & keep this thread BIM free (or at least to a general discussion about IMCs, and not just more BIM stuff.)
Munkeeunit.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Well, I think it needs to be posted here, as it is a technical point that is relevant more to this thread (and forum) than any of the others.
I interpret Mrs. M's request as asking to keep the thread free from bitching about Zaskar - if mods are not happy with this, please feel free to move/edit/whatever.
First of all, I'd like know where exactly this statement has come from, as I appear unable to find it anywhere on the UKIM server or anywhere else. It may just be that the spiders haven't found it yet - it's just that as the statement above is presented as a "short, additional statement, which has been doing the press rounds" it seems odd that I can't seem to find it anywhere else.
Looking at the statement, it further confirms the contradiction between the various claims regarding the logging of IP addresses.
The difference between 'not stored' and 'not permanently stored' is a rather large one in this context. From the statement it is clear that it's author is concerned that the police may well recover the IP address that they are looking for.
To suggest that the reason they can't say for certain that the IP address won't be found on it because they "have no information from the police on this issue, or how they will go about analysing or retrieving information" is ludicrous.
BIMC might be unable to "predict what information they may be able to recover" - I'll help you out here with a prediction of my own: If it's there, it will be recovered.
Even if there is *no* record of the IP address recoverable from the seized server, if the original post is time-stamped (the one that was 'hidden'), even Dixon of Dock Green could probably figure out the IP address by comparing the time-stamp against the logs which have most likely been willingly supplied by the ISP who handle(d) the servers connection (who was that, btw?).
The ramifications of this uncertainty over whether posters to the IM Newswires can be identified by Law Enforcement Agencies cut right to the core of what IM claims to be.
As I suggested before, the entire raison d'etre for the IM server goes up in a puff of logic.
-
I have very real concerns about *any* organisation which gives people the impression that they can write articles anonymously and without fear of retribution when it would appear that (due to the topography employed by IM servers) this is clearly not the case.
Should a situation arise where there is a real *need* for an 'Alternative News Service' through which people considered *dissident* can voice their opinions with impunity, it is obvious that IM could do a lot of very real harm if such *dissidents* were to take the claims of IM (wtr their anonymity) at face value.
I interpret Mrs. M's request as asking to keep the thread free from bitching about Zaskar - if mods are not happy with this, please feel free to move/edit/whatever.
Munkeeunit said:
First of all, I'd like know where exactly this statement has come from, as I appear unable to find it anywhere on the UKIM server or anywhere else. It may just be that the spiders haven't found it yet - it's just that as the statement above is presented as a "short, additional statement, which has been doing the press rounds" it seems odd that I can't seem to find it anywhere else.
Looking at the statement, it further confirms the contradiction between the various claims regarding the logging of IP addresses.
The difference between 'not stored' and 'not permanently stored' is a rather large one in this context. From the statement it is clear that it's author is concerned that the police may well recover the IP address that they are looking for.
To suggest that the reason they can't say for certain that the IP address won't be found on it because they "have no information from the police on this issue, or how they will go about analysing or retrieving information" is ludicrous.
BIMC might be unable to "predict what information they may be able to recover" - I'll help you out here with a prediction of my own: If it's there, it will be recovered.
Even if there is *no* record of the IP address recoverable from the seized server, if the original post is time-stamped (the one that was 'hidden'), even Dixon of Dock Green could probably figure out the IP address by comparing the time-stamp against the logs which have most likely been willingly supplied by the ISP who handle(d) the servers connection (who was that, btw?).
The ramifications of this uncertainty over whether posters to the IM Newswires can be identified by Law Enforcement Agencies cut right to the core of what IM claims to be.
As I suggested before, the entire raison d'etre for the IM server goes up in a puff of logic.
-
I have very real concerns about *any* organisation which gives people the impression that they can write articles anonymously and without fear of retribution when it would appear that (due to the topography employed by IM servers) this is clearly not the case.
Should a situation arise where there is a real *need* for an 'Alternative News Service' through which people considered *dissident* can voice their opinions with impunity, it is obvious that IM could do a lot of very real harm if such *dissidents* were to take the claims of IM (wtr their anonymity) at face value.
munkeeunit
sumptuous lushness
Hello again everyone,
After reading all your comments, feedback and criticisms, it's helped me to coalesce in my own mind the areas I would personally like to see tightened up or changed. I think these are broadly relevant to a number / most / or all IMCs, so I'm posting it here and not on one of the BIM threads.
As a member of an IMC collective (in this case Bristol) I'm probably quite well positioned to help encourage change in Bristol, but not in other collectives. That's down to other people, including those who aren't in an IMC collective, but who may like to be.
These are the main areas I would like to see changed / tightened up.
1.) No IP logging at all, except in response to periods of heavy abuse / trolling, so as to hold the capacity to ban disruptive posters in reserve. (i.e: the capacity to switch on IP logging is retained.)
2.) Clearer guidelines on hiding (or possibly deleting) posts which carry a direct risk, or direct threat of violence against people (not property damage without clear risk of injury, as this interferes with the right to carry out and directly report on politically motivated non-violent direct actions.)
3.) Clearer guidelines on hiding unsourced conspiracy theory type posts. Possibly with two streams of articles / posts. One for sourced or eyewitness accounts, plus events. The other for unsourced or non-eyewitness accounts. Technically this may be a little more difficult to do in the short term, but by no means impossible.
These are my personal opinions on relatively straightforward measures which could help to re-establish faith and trust in how IMCs operate, while, most importantly not impinging or overly restricting the open nature of the newswire which by definition defines the Independent Media Centre project.
Again, thanks to everybody for all your feedback.
I'm sure you've still got more. It certainly helps to get my own brain ticking over.
After reading all your comments, feedback and criticisms, it's helped me to coalesce in my own mind the areas I would personally like to see tightened up or changed. I think these are broadly relevant to a number / most / or all IMCs, so I'm posting it here and not on one of the BIM threads.
As a member of an IMC collective (in this case Bristol) I'm probably quite well positioned to help encourage change in Bristol, but not in other collectives. That's down to other people, including those who aren't in an IMC collective, but who may like to be.
These are the main areas I would like to see changed / tightened up.
1.) No IP logging at all, except in response to periods of heavy abuse / trolling, so as to hold the capacity to ban disruptive posters in reserve. (i.e: the capacity to switch on IP logging is retained.)
2.) Clearer guidelines on hiding (or possibly deleting) posts which carry a direct risk, or direct threat of violence against people (not property damage without clear risk of injury, as this interferes with the right to carry out and directly report on politically motivated non-violent direct actions.)
3.) Clearer guidelines on hiding unsourced conspiracy theory type posts. Possibly with two streams of articles / posts. One for sourced or eyewitness accounts, plus events. The other for unsourced or non-eyewitness accounts. Technically this may be a little more difficult to do in the short term, but by no means impossible.
These are my personal opinions on relatively straightforward measures which could help to re-establish faith and trust in how IMCs operate, while, most importantly not impinging or overly restricting the open nature of the newswire which by definition defines the Independent Media Centre project.
Again, thanks to everybody for all your feedback.
I'm sure you've still got more. It certainly helps to get my own brain ticking over.
Similar threads
