> Contrary to what a few antisocial assholes say about Infoshop News, the
> comments board is less moderated than most Indymedia websites that
> operate under the "open publishing" banner. People understand that
> Infoshop News has a moderated comments board. We have a clearly posted
> moderation and editorial policy. I will admit that I've been overzealous
> in moderating posts at times, but I have my bad days like any other human.
First off, those "few antisocial assholes" who routinely criticize Infoshop News often come from a variety of organized, well established as well as up-and-coming anarchist organization - WSM, NEFAC, FRAC, FNAC, and ABCF to name a few. To call those of us who have deep criticisms of infoshop "antisocial" would be to ignore the very real movement-building work we do - work which has contributed to the largest series of anarchist organizations presently operating in North America - certainly the most coherent and theoretically developed.
Infoshop is in fact moderated far more intensely than any Indymedia website - but my problem is not the intensity of the moderation, but who it is directed against (indeed, Indymedia often suffers from a lack of moderation of fascist and anti-semetic posts). We can all recognize a "flamebait" or innapropriate post - it's one that carries ethically unacceptable (racism, anti-semitism) messages or is short in length and designed as a rudimentary insult. The reality is, the posts I made, and many others made, that were deleted were routinely over 5 pages in length adn contained absolutely no racist or otherwise innapropriate messages. They were coherent, well organized posts that systematically tackled the issues at hand.
Chuck0 deleted these posts because they contradicted his political opinions, and because they presented strong arguments against positions he identified with. Deletion of the posts clearly violated his own moderation and editorial policy. This was a form of political censorship, to make it appear as if questions in debate posed by associates of chuck0 went "unanswered", because all the psots answering those questions were systematically removed. Because there is no direct link on the discussion board to a comment that has been censored, the "moderated posts board" meant nothing in terms of transparency, because no one could readily access it when reading the comment thread.
> Paul ("Rise") was temporarily banned several times for posting sectarian
> flamebait on Infoshop News. As you can see from his post to LBO-list, he
> really is a pretty obnoxious sectarian. Paul operates on the assumption
> that he is the only true anarchist out there and that he has some kind
> of god-given right to annoy people with his narrow sectarianism.
> Infoshop.org is an ecumenical anarchist website that features a diverse
> range of anarchist thought, along with news, ideas, and views from
> leftists and people of other political stripes. Rise intensely hates
> Infoshop and misrepresents the website because it won't toe his narrow
> political line on primitivism. Paul is, of course, free to start his own
> website to promote his views.
I do not, and have never, contested being banned from Infoshop.org. In fact, I consider it it a mark of achievement that I have joined the ranks of people who have been banned for expressing anarcho-communist views and opinions on the site. However, let's look at these accusations by Chuck0 one by one:
Chuck0: "temporarily banned several times for posting sectarian flamebait"
This depends on your definition of "sectarian". If you mean that I was banned for expressing anarcho-communist opinions, in depth and detail (again, an average post exceeded 5 single-spaced pages in a worde processign program at 10-12pt font) then yes, I'm guilty as charged. As for "flamebait", it's pretty obvious this term is being thrown around without technical merit (re: my identification earlier of what actuall constitutes flamebait) and is just being used as a casual insult by Chuck0.
Chuck0: "operates on the assumption that he is the only true anarchist out there and that he has some kind of god-given right to annoy people with his narrow sectarianism"
This is another erroneous, ironic comment. A lot of my posts deal with the idea that there is no anarchist "purity" or "orthodoxy", but that there is a commonly accepted definition of anarchism, and a more or less coherent body of history, theory, and practice that can be said to represent anarchism. While there are many divergent points of view within anarchism, and many I do not agree with, there are also points of view from outside anarchism that try to masquerade themselves as coming from within the anarchist tradition (like Fascism masquerading as "national socialism", or capitalists attempting to enter the anarchist movement as "libertarians" and "anarcho"-capitalists).
I've always held that in order to distinguish a legitmate current within anarchism, to one trying to co-opt certain aspects of anarchism for political gain, you have to hold the viewpoint of the aspiring "anarchist" tendency up against the burden of anarchist principles, history, theory, and practice. This is best determined by the course of debate. That being said, my main tact on infoshop and in general has not bean "is this anarchist or not?" but rather "what liberates people?". When people like Chuck0 huddle up in their narrow ideological camps, little analysis of what actually constitutes ideological benefit to a liberation movement ensues.
Chuck0: "an ecumenical anarchist website that features a diverse range of anarchist thought, along with news, ideas, and views from leftists and people of other political stripes"
This is a bad joke. Infoshop.org is a primarily individualist-anarchist website, which features occasional news and ideas from anarchist tendencies and, on rare occasion, from other left groups (although Chuck0 has a special section for "left" posts, whose graphic icon is a group of dinaosaurs crossing a highway). While infoshop does allow for a broad variety of posts, the majority of posts, the heavy volume, are in sync with Chuck0's narrow ideological agenda. Further, the discussion which ensues on any of the posts is heavily censored to the point where well articulated views contradicting Chuck0's agenda are routinely deleted, so they dangerous ideas they hold cannot be disseminated to readers of the site.
Chuck0: "Rise intensely hates Infoshop and misrepresents the website because it won't toe his narrow political line on primitivism"
It would be unfair to say I "intensely hate" Infoshop. I think the site has it's highpoints - in rare instances where debate has been allowed to occur, strong dialogue between anarcho-communists and in defense of anarchism has been achieved. While I disagree with most of the content on the site, and believe it's many poorly-written propaganda with immature overlays, I appreciate some of the genuine material that does make it on. It would be more accurate to say that I have strong criticisms of the editorship of the site, and of the extreme political censorship that is conducted.
Furthermore, my critiques of the site have never been that it hasn't adopted by own views on specific topics. Rather, my criticism is that it does not allow for an honest and open exchange of diverse and broad views, and that is exactly the problem. Chuck0 makes an Orwellian accusation, implicating myself of his agenda - the real problem is that Chuck0's misrepresents opponents of his extreme censorship in Infoshop who do not share his narrow political line on primitivism and other forms of individualism and liberalism masquerading as "anarchism".
> There are
> currently only two people who are permanently banned from Infoshop News.
I'd be interesting in knowing who those two people are.
> And the idea that I would "censor the fuck" out of a social anarchist
> piece is ludicrous, as I consider myself to be a social anarchist.
We can throw around definitions all we want, but Chuck0 has consistently sided against those anarchists who would consider themselves "social anarchists", or who understand anarchims to by a synthesis of Libertarian and Communist principles (hence anarchim's pseudonym of "libertarian communism"). Chuck0 has consistenly and repeatedly said on infoshop that he opposes these "socialist" currents within anarchism, and if he persists in spreading this obvious misniformation I'll spend some time digging through archives and see if I can resurrect any of his past misstatements regarding social anarchism.
- paul