News Refinery home page    Democratic filters for Indymedia    What do we need at Seattle Indymedia?

go to top 1. Would it be possibler to add a topic page for Seattle? From: Ben Seattle [mailto:bensai@pix.org] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:13 PM To: imc-portland Cc: bensai@pix.org Subject: Would it be possibler to add a topic page for Seattle? Hi folks, The Seattle Indymedia editorial board at present appears to consist of two people who have been allowing neo-nazi posts to the newswire and who have refused (for ten days now, and in spite of numerous posts and emails) to discuss this or explain why. There are also barriers that make it difficult for others to join the editorial board and correct the present course. It is possible that this situation may improve -- but it is also possible that it may not. You guys do a reasonably good job of filtering out right-wing insults and clueless crap. Would Portland imc be able to add a topic page for Seattle? I was thinking of it as being a kind of experiment -- and also a reminder to the seattle editorial group that if they continue on their present, undemocratic path, that activists will eventually find another way around their bullshit. My recent post to Seattle Indymedia (which explains much of this) is below. Sincerely, Ben Seattle

go to top 2. reply to x from Ben Seattle From: Ben Seattle Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:23 AM To: (member of pdximc) Subject: reply to x from Ben Seattle hi there x, Thanks for your email. I can appreciate that you folks must be quite busy and questions like this must be discussed from many angles and that it takes time simply to email me and sum up the situation for me. You guys are activists. Your site serves the movement. The decisions that you make (both technical and political) are made with consideration concerning what best serves the movement. That is why, I would imagine, the Portland site is becoming one of the most popular indymedia sites in the country. You guys appear to be going about this in the right way. You are discussing it collectively and making an effort to base your actions on solid principles -- which can only be discovered as you go. We are all learning. The best thing, from my point of view, is that the Portland Indymedia group has decided that the questions which have come up are deserving of careful thought and discussion. Quite often, in the press of events, the more important questions fail to attract attention and are shunted aside. It is good that someone is going to write to the Seattle editorial group. I believe it consists, at present, of two people, Y and Z, although I could be mistaken. Unfortunately, I have been unable to get a response from either of them as to why they have taken the action which they have, although, of course, I can guess. Z appears to be a decent enough fellow. When I met him he appeared to want to do the right thing although he did not appear to be very assertive. If you folks hear back from Seattle it may be Y who replies. I will leave you folks to form your own conclusions concerning her character, integrity and motivations. We live in a class society. I wish that Seattle had a group of people like you folks to run the indymedia here. I am not sure if the issue is simply that the movement in Portland, for whatever reason, is a bit deeper and there are more serious activists in Portland. Or, if for some other reason, fewer activists here have a very clear understanding of the kinds of activity that are most necessary and useful. If, as you folks discuss this, you have any questions you would like to ask -- I am here. Building a movement that can confront the decisive issues of our time requires that serious activists recognize one another. I met some of you guys at a demo here in Seattle. I like your attitude and I like your site. I will add one more comment and then I will let you get back to your other work. The present situation with the Indymedia network is going to change. Everything about it is going to be torn apart and reassembled in various ways in the coming storm. Everything, everyone and every principle is going to be tested and tested again. All the best, Ben Seattle http://struggle.net/ben

go to top 3. the long-term view on building an alternative news network From: Ben Seattle Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:50 PM To: (member of pdximc) Subject: the long-term view on building an alternative news network with the ability to challenge the dominance of corporate news ------------------------------------------------------- the long-term view Building an alternative news network with the ability to challenge the dominance of corporate news will require political transparency in resolving conflicts ------------------------------------------------------- Hi x, Thank you for your reply and the time that you and the other pdximc activists have spent on this matter. [...] I appreciate that the problems that you describe are real. I understand how, from your point of view, the most practical solution is to limit the use of your newswire to criticize other imc's. I accept that this is the decision your group has made. [...] I also would like to encourage you, and others in your collective, to give some thought to a more long-term perspective on the nature of the problem and the nature of the solution. We live in a class-divided society in which all institutions are subject to corruption of various kinds. Indymedia attracts militant and independent movement activists -- but it also attracts careerists, power-brokers and bureaucrats who see it as a source of favors to be exchanged or as a stepping stone to political office. For indymedia (or for any organization which aspires to serve the movement) to fulfill its mission -- there will be a need for political transparency -- so that problems and disagreements can be public and easily accessible to activists. And that gets to the core of this knot: if the problems are in the open where activists can know about them and organize solutions -- then these problems are also known to those will work energetically to undermine our collective effort and to get us to fight one another. It is the nature of political conflict and struggle that the important issues will always be controversial -- will always engender risk of conflict that becomes unproductive. But if these conflicts remain hidden then the majority of activists (ie: the majority of the energy of any real solution) will be kept in the dark. Is this really what we want? In the long term -- there must be some kind of open, public forum where problems can be discussed and where activists can put together solutions. The problem of spam (either commercial spam or political spam of various kinds) can be solved in democratic ways. I have done some work (see the links below) on how we can use a system of democratic filters (ie: that readers could create and choose) to filter out spam and hostile attacks and improve the focus and signal-to-noise ratio of important discussion. But there is also a need consider this from a political perspective. Why is it that conflict can be so easily inflamed by those who wish us harm (or even by those who are ignorant and bored)? Ultimately the political trends and individuals who are genuinely interested in building a movement with the ability to challenge the current system of corporate rule will learn to recognize one another and to listen to one another (even if they do not always agree). Eventually an open community of such people will be created. And one of the bedrock principles of this community will be political transparency: problems and disagreements will be on the table in the light of the sun -- in full view of friend and foe alike. Keeping our "dirty laundry" hidden or out of view may seem like an attractive short-term solution. But sooner or later we must ask ourselves how the laundry will be cleaned. Private negotiation and private confrontation may be able to solve many problems -- but some problems are fundamental and cannot be solved in secret -- cannot be solved until large numbers of activists understand what is going one and recognize that something needs to be changed. I believe a change is needed in how Seattle indymedia is run. In the past, when the editorial committee was larger and more open, activists could join it in order to change it. Today this route appears to have been effectively closed off along with the newswire. So how can seaimc be "redeemed" when it appears to be under the entrenched control of a single individual who has made clear that she does not consider there to be any need to be responsive or accountable to progressive readers? What are the next steps forward? I don't know what the next steps forward are. I do believe, however, that solutions will be found that involve the energy of activists who want to see projects that are run in the spirit of genuine democracy. If this knot cannot be unraveled then, sooner or later, it will be cut. I understand that there is nothing more that pdximc can do to assist the situation in Seattle at this time. Your decision to allow article #335005 onto your newswire has been helpful. Activists here will find a way forward with time and determination. In the long run it is the working class and the oppressed who will win the "information war". We have the truth on our side and our views correspond to the material interests of the majority of society. We will overcome barriers of all kinds and build a politically conscious mass movement. Sincerely, Ben Seattle http://struggle.net/ben Democratic filters (where readers can create, share, select and combine filters) are the solution to newswire spam on Indymedia http://NewsRefinery.com/indymedia/proposal.htm http://NewsRefinery.com/indymedia/mockup.htm