portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

community building | media criticism

IMC collectives resort to spamming each other

And then things went silly
Recently the Portland statement on the SF conflict got posted to the DC newswire. I looked around, and apparently it got posted to several other newswires as well.

You know, usually this kind of posting pattern is called spamming, and it's frustrating and disheartening to see come from another collective. For whatever it's worth, I happen to agree with the bulk of Portland's views on the SF conflict, but that's what listservs like imc-us-process are for.

Please don't spam sister collective's newswires with discussion that belongs in the indymedia lists. It's destructive and not appreciated. Two wrong's don't make a right, so I'm sorry that I've repeated the pattern here to make the point, but I hope this can end.
who's spamming? 16.Jan.2004 05:50

spam filter

Then why are you going around spreading your "spam" to other indymedia sites?

>Two wrong's don't make a right, so I'm sorry that I've repeated the pattern here to make the point ...

Please tell me that was a joke.

spam? or reposting 16.Jan.2004 06:45


Are you sure it was PDX who posted the story onto other sites? Because, if it was featured here, it would go into the bin and possibly be picked up by other sites.....

Spam? or News? 16.Jan.2004 09:24


Anyone can repost an article they think is interesting or worthy of peoples attention. Maybe someone in your own area did so. Maybe others around the country. Since it is an issue important to the wider indymedia community, I hardly see it as spam. Your post on the otherhand is more spam like. Just a point to consider.

answer 16.Jan.2004 11:55


Yes, I'm having to make an inference that I might be wrong about.

If a Portland IMCr really didn't go around spamming other newswires with the article that they (very rightfully) featured here, then I'm wrong.

But I think the odds of joe or jane indymedia reader coming across the portland site and going "golly, this is fascinating, I'm going to go post this to other indymedia sites" is pretty remote at best.

The only other very credible or likely possibility is that the Indybay collective went on the spam campaign across the network, but frankly I've seen them (thankfully) avoid this kind of behavior for the most part. (

So hey, if I'm wrong, just shirk it off and say "no, people int he Portland collective didn't do it". I'll believe you.

Let the good people in SF find a way to work through their conflict and let the rest of the network keep trying to produce and promote alternative media. I'm sick of the rest of the network being held as some forced captive audience to activist soap operas. That's all I'm advocating. Please. Thank you.

p.s. I was going to just write this to the imc-portland listserv, but when I visited the archives it seemed like the list isn't really used much. Not that it really makes a huge difference or anything, but when you say the Portland collective reached a consensus on that statement, just how many imc people are we talking about? My local collective has around 20+ core people who would be active in any consensus decision like that, and while we've talked about the SF conflict, I can't imagine us as a group coming up with such a pointed decision when it seems like both "sides" have made errors in judgement and behavior along the way. Again, I don't mean to imply that invalidates the collective's statement--not like there's some IMC quorum--but it really did surprise me as a collective's statement.

spam? 16.Jan.2004 13:49

then why aren't you also spam?

Does anyone else see the irony in this person accusing people of posting to multiple websites - doing exactly that?

reply 16.Jan.2004 20:02


I acknowledged the problem of doing the same thing in my very first comment.

Still, I don't think the tact of "Hey, see how using a newswire for material best handled over list discussion is kind of annoying? Yeah, right, so pleast stop doing it" is entirely ludicrous or evil or heinous or, well, you get the idea.

If you'd like to go ahead and hide this as a newswire posting, I won't balk or complain. I've also already said that I was making an inference and, if I was wrong and Portland Indymedia is in no way responsible for posting this around the IMC network, then I'm sorry.

But if you find this behavior toublesome, and Portland Indymedia has been engaged in it, then please stop.
Thanks again.

re: reply 17.Jan.2004 15:00

re: reply

You're saying that it is wrong (no matter how critical the information may be) and that "Two wrongs don't make a right". So by your logic, you were also wrong to do what you did here.

And it's also possible that you (whoever you are) have a vested interest in keeping this story from getting out to more indymedia folks. And this could be your attempt to keep it under the rug by sounding reasonable ("I happen to agree with the bulk of Portland's views on the SF conflict") while urging restraint.

Anyone who cares about Indymedia's 17.Jan.2004 19:40


reputation for journalistic integrity, has a vested interest in seeing only the truth displayed on Indymedia sites. This story is at best hearsay, and at worst fiction. What it is not, is demonstrable truth.

It's hard enough to get people to believe what we say, just because we're volunteers, and because we are activists. If we are not meticulous in maintaining an higher standard of journalism than does the ubiquitous propaganda mill of the corporate-government complex, we're wasting our time here. We may as well talk to a wall.

Integrity 19.Jan.2004 10:34


Integrity is connected to honesty, not truth.

Truth is one of those impossible metaphysical Ideals about which Plato wrote.

Every individual, and every collective to which he belongs, has a different perspective on the truth of every issue; and those myriad perspective-truths also vary over time.

Honesty rests on reporting accurately one's own truth, with inquiry and respect for the listeners' understandings. The respect most usually involves willingness to revise one's own text/words to promote understanding, and willingness to revise one's own truth to accommodate new evidence.

Integrity in IndyMedia would be honestly reporting one's perception of the facts and accepting questions and criticisms -- and revisions.

It is impossible to be sure (another Ideal) of another person's or group's honesty. However, over time, everybody can, by comparing words with deeds (and often words with words), estimate the honesties of those around them.

Significantly to the present dispute, far more trouble arises from over-estimating honesty than from underestimating.

This is also significant to the present dispute. There are two prinicipal means of testing 'truth' : to compare its implications/predictions with future events; and to seek other peoples' evaluations, ie to publish and ask for (informed, properly argued) opinions and testings against the future. Science, philosophy, practical trades, and even most religions demand both. Abusers and oppressors typically demand both be rejected (or defined into impotence).

Secret truths are lies.
Secret deals are betrayals.