[lbo-talk] How To Keep Hostile Jerks From Taking Over YourOnlineCommunity

Tayssir John Gabbour tayssir.john at googlemail.com
Fri May 18 10:57:19 PDT 2007


On 5/18/07, Chuck <chuck at mutualaid.org> wrote:
> You leave out the rest of the context. Anarchy magazine has been
> publishing most of the letters it gets, for over 20 years. The magazine
> has devoted considerable resources to printing these letters, most of
> which I think shouldn't be printed. But the magazine is interested in
> printing all, or most, of the letters it receives.

I pasted almost the full text of Anarchy magazine's justification, and linked to it. If you think he left out the rest of the context, then since it's a forum, hopefully you might spell it out for interested participants.


> I don't agree with the magazine's policy, but it's their choice. Their
> website is adopting a different policy for the Internet medium. These
> decisions, as well as the policies we have at Infoshop, are consistent
> with anarchist principles. These are our projects, therefore we have the
> right to set the parameters for discussion. It's about freedom of
> association and disassociation.

Are you claiming that I disagree with these anarchists' /right/ to moderate what speech is acceptable on their site?

I certainly don't. Just like I agree with one Republican blogger's right to quickly delete my comment pointing out that we in the US unfortunately jail more our citizenry than any other nation on earth, as far as we know.

In fact, he told me pretty much the same (correct) justification, that it was his right to delete my words, and I could write them elsewhere. So, those in charge of Anarchist magazine have the right to personally scan every single message posted to see whether it's "attacking" the magazine in a bad way. I agree.

As for "anarchist principles," it seems to me that anarchism is so broad, that people can easily pick and choose which parts of the ideology suit them. I'm sure anarchism is not some "axiomatic system" free of conflicting interpretations. The most enlightened and disreputable ideas can come from self-described anarchists, some of whom war amongst themselves about who REALLY deserves to be called an anarchist.


> I don't see how this is "centralized" or "strong", anymore than the
> so-called "decentralized" moderation system of Digg is actually
> controlled by a few of the most active participants.

I keep hearing Digg's owners occasionally try clamping down on unpleasant topics. Maybe you can elaborate on why Digg is relevant? I almost never visit Digg and know little about them.

Tayssir



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list