Indymedia UK – Dramatic Fail!

For quite some time now Indymedia UK has been plagued by the so called 911 truth movement. These poor deluded souls seem to think the United States so powerful that a bunch of ignorant Arabs could never have carried out the 11/9 attacks.

So convinced are they that they have spent the past 6/7 years desperately attempting to forge links between ever more tenuous pieces of ‘evidence’ and then spamming what seems like the entire internet with their new ‘proof’.

Indymedia UK has been a target because of its open publishing policy which, whilst I agree with the sentiment, has left them seemingly powerless to fend off this deluge of racist, paranoid drivel. Everyday it seems that their is some wingnut posting fresh rubbish to the newswire in a frustrating attempt to wake us ‘sheeple’ from our slumber.

This arrogant dismissal of all who disagree with their delusion really ticks me off by the way.

It has somewhat bewildered me that Indymedia has tolerated this deluge. I would have thought that somewhere in the guidelines that govern the use of the website there would have been some tool they could use to delete this rubbish.

It does seem however that this is not the case and as is revealed in this recent 9/11 post the insanity of the truthers has now infected the moderators of the board.

If anything I would hope that this behaviour, hiding comments critical of the truthers, would serve to have this particular admins status revoked. Sadly I do not think this will be the case. It has become ever more apparent that far from the stated aim of open publishing IMUK is little more than a promotional tool for the admins pet projects/campaigns be they Climate Camping, 9/11 truthing or hiding from the evil lizard people.

IM quite happily tolerates comments from fascists and other neo-nazis but refuses to tolerate even the most mild of criticisms of moderator projects.

Power to the people or power to the moderators?

This show in glorious technicolour how anarchistic organisation without actual organisation fails. The moderators have no responsibility to anyone but themselves. They are not responsible to the ‘wider movement’ who have no way to hold them to account for their actions or lack thereof.

The same goes for anarchist groups that do not have a structure that can hold their members to account for their actions. Without structure informal hierarchies emerge that are even more insidious than the ones that dominate the present society.


Posted on November 5, 2008, in Indymedia, Interwebs and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. I think its wonderful that you’re so much more intelligent than the average Indymedia reader, and have been able to see comments that they can’t. The fact that you can read and link to comments that aren’t tolerated is, well, almost magical.

    What confuses me is that you didn’t read the guidelines and obtain the list address so that you could raise your concerns and get a reply. Instead you write a piece without bothering to do the research. You must be ever so proud of the result.

    So, presumably you would call this thread: a failure of the “dramatic fail”, as it appears to carry quite a few critical comments.

    And, how about these?

    All failures of the “dramatic fail” as well?

    There is some irony in the fact that whilst making it abundantly clear that 9/11 stories should be wiped off the site because you don’t agree with them, in the same breath you can also say:

    “This arrogant dismissal of all who disagree with their delusion really ticks me off by the way.”

    And also in the fact that having failed to even try and discuss your concerns with Indymedia, you suddenly claim:

    “The moderators have no responsibility to anyone but themselves. They are not responsible to the ‘wider movement’ who have no way to hold them to account for their actions or lack thereof.”

    Yet as part of the ‘wider movement’ – (presumably the authoritarian part that dictates what people and aren’t allowed to speak about, or spend time on) – your instinctive approach is to attack the kollektive with no attempt to engage in dialogue.

    Or perhaps you could have posted an informative and insightful refutation of the article and seen if that got hidden. But perhaps you think it much better for the ‘wider movement’ if we attack each other on imcomplete evidence, without bothering to check it out first?

    Indymedia does actually carry critiques of the ‘truth movement’ as well as other information about it, Furthermore there is no consensus in the kollektives – some are against the banning and some would like to purge away and pretend that 9/11 is nothing to do with us, and that anyone who has anything to do with it is a ‘conspiraloon who shares exactly the same beliefs as every other conspiraloon’ – which shows a real ignorance and lack of insight of whole picture.

    An ignorance that would only be compounded if apparently self-appointed gatekeepers like yourself got your way.

  2. What the problem was here was that an Indymedia admin was using his privilidge to hide comments critical of his pet project i.e 9/11 muppetry.
    This happened before when another admin hid comments critical of their pet project in this case it was the climate camp.
    The problem is that IM does not have responsibility to anyone but the collective. The place is an embarrassment to all serious politics due to its tolerance of rubbish like 9/11 paranoia.
    the arrogant dismissal of the 9/11ers is similar to the way religious nutters dismiss any who can not see the true way. I would not want them tolerated either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: