A few of the smaller sites have definitely become less well maintained or gone "dark". But, some of these sites were never well maintained to start with. The bulk of the network (which is freakin' huge) is still going very strong. However, unlike corporate media, indymedia can't MAKE UP news when there is not much. There, in my opinion, is not really a lot going on right now in the social justice world of huge proportions, as there was at the inception of indymedia and through the defeat of the FTAA and WTO, using indymedia as the primary vehicle for carrying the information to and away from those major events. There is a, more or less, always a war and always a "natural" flow to events. Indymedia is a tactic that is a CONDUIT for what is happening in the community. Portland, even in the social just famine times, still has enough social justice activity going on to support a pretty fast moving newswire. However, some smaller locales have "single issues" or not enough community posting to keep inertia through the famine. In Portland, the indymedia tactic is sustainable. There is, like anything that grows over time, a period of digging deeper roots, of sending up more trunk, of sprouting new leaves, and inevitably some die-back that makes room for even more of the plant to grow itself.
Indymedia is in it for the long haul. More than anything indymedia is, like the rest of the tactics/energy born of the anti-globalization movement, like a dog that caught the car that it was chasing after. It is hard to know what do next when you won. It is obvious that Content Management Systems, open-publishing (including blogs), is an area which indymedia pioneered for the news/media domain. It is a great part of the mission of indymedia to make open-publishing of original reporting, commentary and analysis from the community a big "DUH... of course that's how news is gather and analyzed." Well, anyone can look around and see that part of the mission has been accomplished in many ways. Corporate media, anywhere from FoxNews websites/channels to OPB, find themselves pressured by the expectations raised by indymedia tactics to allow "regular folks" to report or aid in the reporting... or at the very least comment and discuss articles/pieces on their sites. The corporate media and "professional journalists" bitch and whine about lack of accountability or standards or whatever it is that tries to keep them in control of their jobs and minds of their "masses", but look... they're doing exactly what they say they hate about indymedia....real "unqualified" people telling their stories. Indymedia has generated the expectation of at least an "appearance" of involving community input in almost every corner of the news. Even in the whitehouse press pool there are "bloggers" who now hold some sway. This phenomenon, giving voice to the formally voiceless, the other main prong of the indymedia mission has been successful by helping people to find their voice, trusting their own writing/reporting and launching their own websites (blogs) or projects. So, the questions are of the type, "what now?"
Actually, it is very easy to see that even these appearances of asking for community input from corporate media or "independent" media make them no more open than they were before. Indymedia still provides the only truly open-publishing space where the community actually makes the news and where there is space enough for anyone who writes a passionate, original, local telling of first-person experience. This is especially true in the social justice community. Indymedia tactics, similarly to riseup.net and resist.ca, have a commitment to privacy, security and "no money in the process" (ie beyond non-profit).
There is actually a lot of excitement around new versions of the tech/web tools that make indymedias function on the web. The lull in much huge social justice movement gives indymedias time to re-group. There is a movement to create web/multi-media based "indymedia 2.0" sites, and you can bet that Portland will most likely be one of the first to move to such a platform as it comes out.
In all the communities where enough stuff is actually happening, and/or the volunteers there have enough backbone and foresight, to support an indymedia or where events (like the recent No Borders Camp) are happening, indymedia is still the main avenue for getting the truth out. You can be sure that when the shit really hits the fan in next big flow of the social justice movement, whether about anti-globalization or not, indymedia will be the tactic that carries that information having both roots, flexibility, and commitment to truth and social justice that every other tactic lacks.
I'm not sure indymedia, which started in 1999, and spread like wildfire through the first 4 years of the 21st century, could be called a relic of the 1990's. That's an amusing stretch. Also, I'm not sure that FoxNew$ $pace and Google'sTube have anything to do with indymedia as vehicle for reporting. Indymedia has more to do with Google'sTube than the other, since the indymedia tactic (being probably one of the first, by virtue of the CMS) generated the inertia for such a site.... Yeah (SF)/Active! However, Google'sTube deals with only video (stretch to audio) media and has no community aspect in any way. It certainly has no focus on social justice. Further, when you post to either of these things, remember who owns your data, who knows you posted and who is selling/using your social networks and data access patterns in a way that will come back to bite you in the butt. Indymedia tactics, again, have a commitment to privacy and security and against things like hate-speech, etc.
I'd be willing to bet that "Indymedia 2.0" sites will have some features in the social networking/blogging/flash player domain....but, the WAY in which these sites will function will always be motivated by social justice values even if the HOW is the same. The MEANS are more important than the ENDS.
-the format hasn't evolved
-there is no real interactive communication during protests (as it was when Media Island set up the first Indymedia back on N30)
-many many people are blocked from posting perfectly reasonable posts
There are lots of dead sites. What surprises me is that none of the once active sites, e.g. Italy Indymedia have came back with a web 2.0 offering. A lot of problems can be solved with reader moderation, modding up stories and marking stories as unsuitable. Even early forum software is better when it comes to a 'user account', adding comments and searching for stories.
In my opinion Indymedia would do well to move forward on to new 'CMS' software, to embrace the Open Source philosophy and give something back. I also think that the many sites is a problem, for posters and readers. One site with language options would make more sense. A way of geographically navigating stories - 'tags' can be setup to find local news.
Given that Portland is one of the more active groups I think it is time to introduce a new CMS and inject some life into the site, as an example for Indymedia groups the world over.
Which may be part of the problem Indymedia faces, that it's become disconnected from the action. There have been far larger social justice mobilizations in the last three or so years, and a far higher level of public dissatisfaction with the government than there ever was during the heyday of the anti-globalization movement. Remember there were only 2 major demonstrations in North America during that period (Seattle and Quebec), and to the general population these protests were a strange anomaly that they didn't understand. People were not dissatisfied with the government then, now 80% of the population thinks the country is going in the wrong direction, and many of them are mobilizing. It's just that they are doing it on a local level instead of all attending a large spectacular protest. A few examples out of hundreds would be folks organizing in post-Katrina New Orleans, the Jena 6 mobilization, the US Social Forum attended by 15,000 people, the millions who struck for Immigrants rights on May Day 2006, the ILWU shutting down the west coast ports to protest the war on May Day of this year, truckers holding fuel protests, even in terms of big militant/spectacular protests there is the attempt to shut down the RNC this summer in the Twin Cities who some have said might bring out 100,000 people. Mobilization was not happening on that scale before or during the period between Seattle and 9/11. The books "Standing Up to the Madness" by Amy and David Goodman and "The Uprising" by David Sirota go into far greater detail as to the depth and breadth of social justice organizing going on right now under the radar. So I don't think the hypothesis of social justice famine holds up. If the Indymedia network is not identifying itself with those struggles, then that is where the problem lies. I usually only read the portland site, so I wasn't aware of some of the problems in the network until this post. Portland Indy is well connected with the community organizing in it's geographic area, but it would seem that in a lot of places the collectives or potential collectives aren't well connected with local organizing. And I think that makes all the difference in the strength of a site.
quoting: "There have been far larger social justice mobilizations in the last three or so years, and a far higher level of public dissatisfaction with the government than there ever was during the heyday of the anti-globalization movement. Remember there were only 2 major demonstrations in North America during that period (Seattle and Quebec).."
It is interesting the choice of the two major demonstrations as laid out here. I think these both count, for sure. But, don't forget Sacramento WTO, Miami FTAA, Cancun FTAA, and NYC RNC.. to name a few. The FTAA died at Miami. The WTO died somewhere in its midst. These were through 2004 (if I recall correctly). I think once Miami was over and the FTAA put down with the WTO right behind it, that was the "winning" moment. Since then there has been only few anti-globalization efforts. Indymedia was born in that PARTICULAR fire. This is not to say that other G8 stuff hasn't been going on internationally that is important. I think the ILWU and labor movement stuff is VERY important, but at the same time, like war, there is ALWAYS a labor issue and strikes... it doesn't have the SINGULARITY that the anti-globalization (fueled a lot by labor) had in terms of energy. The anti-globalization MOVEMENT (1st wave?) has come and gone.
So, perhaps "famine" is the wrong/strong word to use about social justice "in general." There is still a baseline of social justice action... a percolation.. the "normal" stuff.. war and labor... and government and dissatisfaction with government... democrats and republicans... et cetera. It is a question of perspective. Anyone who jumped into the open-publishing arena at the height of the (1st wave?) anti-globalization movement would see this as a lull... and perhaps see this period as disappointing... I think that's a bit spoiled/instant gratification minded. Anyone who jumps in now would see the next wave as great peak... and perhaps not take it for granted. It is just a question of where the movement was and where it is now. So, if famine isn't exactly the right word, perhaps "trough" or something like that. It is safe to say that is not "feast" time anymore. Most importantly, REGARDLESS of the technology, indymedia can't "connect with" anything, unless the community of writers connects with that thing. Indymedia doesn't, as a technology or tactic, go out and get anything... it is a conduit... it has to wait for things to come to it. It is not a place to passively consume news, it is a place to GENERATE/WRITE news in community. That's the main thing that is truly radical about the METHOD of indymedia, that is totally different from any blogging, social networking or other tactic.
lastly quoting: "The books "Standing Up to the Madness" by Amy and David Goodman and "The Uprising" by David Sirota go into far greater detail as to the depth and breadth of social justice organizing going on right now under the radar"
As far as what a $tarbucks latte drinking Amy Goodman has to say about things........ I'll leave it there. The work that liberals do can sometimes be important work. I support the efforts of presenting the non majority (in the government sense) viewpoint... however, the FSRN/FSTV tactic is just the opposite viewpoint, but using the same methods as the corporate media... money and hierarchy.
Not to put too fine a point on it... in my opinion... for those who complain about sometimes not seeing their posts on the newswire...it is still a question of PERSPECTIVE and/or DEGREE. Try posting your corporate media repost to someone's (or some group's) personal blog and see if it appears there. Wait, you can't post to someone else's personal blog.... hmmmm. You can post a comment to something there... maybe... but, there isn't even a guideline or principle of unity about voice to the voiceless or mutual aid there. People build the expectation in their head that indymedia is a tactic supposed to store and publish widely ANY thing that they post. That's wonderful that the concept of Freedom embodied in indymedia generates that.... but, that's a VERY high bar....higher than any other site you can name (PERSPECTIVE).
However, indymedia is a vehicle that gives voice to the voiceless (not corporate media reposts) through the tool of open-publishing, focusing on LOCAL, ORIGINAL, FIRST-PERSON reporting, commentary and analysis based on a principles of unity that remove money and insert mutual aid to people taking ACTION for social justice. So, it is very easy to tell that when there are a lot of LOCAL people taking ACTION and reporting, commenting on, or analyzing FIRST-HAND events that they participated in, then indymedia is at its high-point. When some of these conditions aren't met, it is at a lower point.... when few or none are met, it is at its lowest point. Indymedia is a conduit for what is HAPPENING, when not much is happening..... there you have it. The proof is in the posting.
what is missing is live coverage with something like YouTube videos. Indy media emerged (evolved) out of the need to tell the non corporate story of the WTO in Seattle. We need an event and the ease of cell phone cams, video cams to present that event when the Corporatists are ignoring that story or giving it their "twisted version".
The LNG story could do soemthing like this. We could wait until Novemeber 4th to yet again have a false election happen and use Indy Media for that, but that is too geographically big of an event and recording a stolen election between two Corporate Candidates is like "so... " There must be an event that is so hot and geographically bottle necked that could become the perfect launch pad of InDyMeDiA 2.0 with video stream like YouTube.
And bloggers are holding the shovels next to open graves. While Indy has been somewhat informative, the writing quality was never that great. IMC is disconnected from reality--the economy is in total collapse and we get a Whale Poem.
I wanted to take some of the very good responses and add my 2cents one piece at a time:
"-the format hasn't evolved
-there is no real interactive communication during protests (as it was when Media Island set up the first Indymedia back on N30)
-many many people are blocked from posting perfectly reasonable posts"
The format has evolved to great degree over time, at least at Portland. Originally there was no way to separate local stuff from other stuff or see just video or audio or what-not. There was no way to get an RSS feed of just any one of those. That all changed about 2 years ago. Event specific pages were created. The "nation-state" based locations were moved to bio-regions. Projects on cable tv, radio and print were developed. However, as much as I like change, change for the sake of change is not good change. The format of indymedia, at least as respects newswire/topics/features in center is really still the best way. Pretty much every other site (2.0 or not), has these elements (including blogs).
There certainly is MUCH interactive communication during protests... at least in portland... using the indymedia tactics. At important events, portland indymedia radio is live streaming and taking calls all day (for every day) that things happen. There was the ability to leave an audio message and have this replayed later. But, as I have said, there really has been anything big in a while. Breaking news provides SOME level of very fast response. Other indymedia related tactics like TXTMOB have also been used. As far as a place to bring together all the information related to a social justice event at as fast and interactive pace is concerned, agreeing that some CMS upgrade is necessary, indymedia is still the only real option.
The number of posts that don't go to the newswire OR compost bin (corporate media repost, disinfo, adverts, ad-hominem attacks, hate speech,etc.) are VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY few. It is a VERY rare case where something isn't on the newswire or the compost bin. However, I wouldn't say that the website makes it very obvious where the compost bin is.
"In my opinion Indymedia would do well to move forward on to new 'CMS' software, to embrace the Open Source philosophy and give something back"
Using Open Source CMS (and other software) is an indymedia principle of unity which each indymedia subscribes to. Portland indymedia is no different. The tech volunteers involved have given back significantly to the FOSS community since day one.
"A way of geographically navigating stories - 'tags' can be setup to find local news. "
On Portland... perhaps not on other sites... you can click "local" above the newswire and see just local stories. Each story is 'tagged' with region when posted since day one.
"InDyMeDiA 2.0 with video stream like YouTube. "
First of all Google'sTube does not stream anything (at least not live). They merely have flash (proprietary/not open) player based video. This make it easier to display video on many different computers. Indymedia as a tactic has to be able to overcome the proprietary nature of the thing, because indymedia requires FOSS. Several live video streams have been successful using the indymedia tactic... again, however, this has been at big events... Miami FTAA, for instance, LONG before live video streaming was even moderately mainstream. Also, portland indymedia has the ability to accept fairly large amounts of video ... AND ... MULTIPLE video uploads can be done to the SAME article.... AND... this video is not owned by Google.
"While Indy has been somewhat informative, the writing quality was never that great. IMC is disconnected from reality--the economy is in total collapse and we get a Whale Poem."
"Quality" of writing has never been the measure of indymedia. AMOUNT of writing might be a better one. The attempt is to help people find their voice and distribute that voice far and wide as possible. Indymedia can be a good place to CONSUME information when a lot of people in the community are PRODUCING good information. But the focus of indymedia, as I see it, is PRODUCE... not CONSUME. The switch from consume to produce is the reality that needs to be addressed. The economy goes up and down, war happens, there are labor disputes, etc.; but the singular challenge of our generation is INFORMATION POWER. Indymedia doesn't have a voice of its own... its connection to currents in society are based on who posts and what they post. Some people don't like poetry.... that's fine... there's no money in poetry, and no poetry in money.
The real problems with this site are, for instance, that uploading media files just doesn't work very well, and video files don't show up with a big happy screenshot thumbnail and a "play" button like people expect in 2008. And there sure is a lot of nonsense on the "news" wire, not to mention reposts from closet racists and empire worshipping liberals.
But people aren't talking about that.
The fact that all the critics are complaining about is that their precious opinion comments aren't showing up often enough should tell you what you need to know about how relevant Portland Indymedia is to independent news reporting. Go off to Digg or Craigslist or the other forty thousand websites where you can post your armchair critiques of everyone and everything as if anybody fuckin' cares.
I speak only for myself, other drones may respond as well.
Looking through the bulk of the the responses that used 4-letter words or personal attacks (like the word 'facist') they all centered on a false understanding of "censorhip". First, most everyone likes to see their own brilliant writing and can stand the smell of their own poop. Fortunately, the responses that weren't offensive or tried to attack people were generally not about censorship, but about CMS and other tools. That division is pretty typical. People who are foul mouthed and don't know how to argue anything except by personally attacking others' comments/articles cry CENSORSHIP.... while others who have an agenda besides seeing their own self talk post critical, but reasonable comments. It has been that way at least as far back as 2002.
When a poster posts crap half the time and good stuff half the time, the level of ALL VOLUNTEER effort it takes to sort out the crap from the good stuff is not worth it. So, it is probably best to leave the personal attacks and comments that don't further a discussion behind at all times. There is no conspiracy or personal grudges towards this or that poster among the volunteers (as far as I know); but there is a level of effort to deal with disruption (eg. ad hominem attacks, one liners that don't add anything, etc.) of a certain poster that many people just won't take the time to read their good posts once there are a bunch of bad ones.
Crying censorship is TIRED TIRED cliche. First of all, censorship is not possible by the indymedia tactic. Censorship is when someone/something has the power to prevent you from being able to say/publish something ANYWHERE -OR- that someone/something has the power to bring PAIN/PENALTIES to you if you manage to say/publish it SOMEWHERE. Governments and parents and kings/queens can do that to a great degree. Also, professional writers who are under a contract can also be truly censored. This is probably the main reason people use the word "censorship" when they mean something else. A "professional" writer, which except for when corporate media writers post comments none of us are, is many times under a contract that says that they can not publish anywhere else. When their editor/publisher refuses to print something they write, because they can't post it somewhere else, THEY ARE CENSORED. When a government refuses to let a book be published inside the country or forbids its import, etc. That IS censorship. Because they can ACTUALLY prevent the writing from appearing ANYWHERE. And.. .if the government finds out that you did manage to print it somewhere -OR- your editor/publisher finds out you printed your article somewhere else, they bring penalties to you including jail or loss of money or being fired/blackblisted from the industry.
Indymedia can't do any of these things. It can't censor you. You can post your un-constructive, insulting comment in about a million places anywhere on the internet, in a book, on poster on a telephone pole, on a bathroom wall, in your zine, on the TV, on the radio, ad nauseam. I have a feeling that about 50% of the people who cry censorship don't understand what the word means and about 50% know what it means but just want to use a super-charged word. However, if you do feel that indymedia is the ONLY place you can post and that you really are censored because you have no options, then that sounds like a great compliment that it is the only community site that cares about social justice issues they way it does.... so you should probably respect the hours of ALL VOLUNTEER effort that it takes to make that space freely available to you.
The problem with crying censorship, like crying war when it is just a forceful taking of another country's oil, is that there probably will come a time in that person's life where they will ACTUALLY be censored. When that time comes, that person will wish they never contributed to a discussion where the word becomes meaningless.....or where indymedia didn't exist... because no one is going to believe that they wrote a thoughtful constructive comment/article and they went to jail.
"yes, it is dying. multitude of reasons, one of my favorites is the banning of posters. I was banned under a different domain after I posted comments. my comments were not offensive, abusive, or insulting, but were just of a differing opinion."
To my knowledge, no one has ever been "banned" when they were not disruptive. Volunteers look at things post by post. There has never been an instance I can think of where a commenter had things removed when they weren't offensive, abusive or insulting AT SOME TIME. Most of the time what happens is that posters do some insulting, un-constructive things, see them removed and then go on a diatribe (which makes volunteers even more reluctant to make close calls later), then at some point write some good comments and BY THAT POINT volunteers don't even look at the content (a matter of time... since there are at times 100 posts a day) to see if it isn't insulting this time. For the site to be useful at all, it is important to highlight the non-abusive and constructive posts (which are about 85%) and spend little time on the others. There are no robots doing the work (which is considerable); people have to allocate time to either reading a poster's comment who typically says "fuck you.. facist" or just moving on to the next one. It's a matter of time, not conspiracy. People belly-aching about their insulting posts being removed reminds me of the old thing about how the person says to their buddy, "Hey... it hurts when I do this..", then the other person says, "yeah... well stop doing it."
However, to be fair, in the overwhelming majority of cases (somewhere above 80%) where posting isn't abusive and post doesn't show up, it is a computer glitch. Technology level is the criticism I think that is most relevant to indymedia now. It is funny though that people just assume the world and un-paid volunteers are out to get them, rather assume the best. Again, 98% of the time that people have written to the mailing list (or posted a comment) assuming the worst, they actually, in fact, wrote abusive comments/articles. 2% of the time, just paranoia.
I think you can say that there actually are a lot of WORKING social justice people who use the site, whom are also REALLY being monitored/abused by the government in their communications, whose points of view REALLY are not going to be printed in a lot of other places. It seems perfectly understandable that these same people will think that there is a monster behind the machine... because that really does exist in a lot of places and because they read and work with social justice, they know it is true... however, it is not true with indymedia.... they are picking the wrong target. Just for the heck of it... couldn't some of these "indymedia is dead"... "CENSORSHIP, CENSORSHIP!!!!!" posts be cointelpro? That really exists too... we all know it.
---
"It's been corrupted by someone's personal belief system and is no longer truly independent. the only things that actually post are protests and benefits. not really a creative spot anymore or a place to share real local news."
I'm not sure what this exactly means. If 1) some ONE's personal belief system was in-charge of anything, that thing would BY DEFINITION be independent.... but, this is not the case anyway, many people in community have different beliefs when they post and volunteers have many different beliefs (believe me) 2) Because indymedia tactic has to wait for posters in the community to post articles (comments are nice but, they aren't the go-go juice) it is always DEPENDENT. Usually, when we talk about "independent" media we mean not tied to some particular source of income (corporate / advertising/ one investor). On that score, the indymedia tactic in Portland is the most independent thing around. There is no money involved in the process on any shared level of resource. You can't get much more "independent", in that sense, than indymedia. Posters in Portland should count blessings... even compared with some other indymedias (think UC.. which is 501c(3).. PUKE!) I think it is interesting that this poster didn't cite some other media tactic that was more "independent." Lot's of criticism without WORKABLE solutions is not really helpful.
Secondly, it is obvious to anyone who follows the newswire or features that "protests and benefits" aren't the only thing that "posts." I can't even imagine how this could be stated when all a person has to do is look 10 seconds to see it isn't true. I have to imagine maybe the assumption is that no one will look? Weird. Portland indymedia is still the best place to share real local news..... however, especially that news which is relevant to social justice. And... just the other day someone complained about seeing poetry on the site... now, here is a complaint about nothing creative on the site...when poetry is rarely ever featured... geez.... guess you can't please everyone... wait... maybe that's it... maybe you can't please everyone and the best you can do is try to help out those people that are helping you...better tuck that little gem away. It would be great if some of the commenters on this article would spend more time posting these real local news articles and less time being critical of the resource being provided to them for free. Moral of the story: if YOU don't post it, it won't be here.... and you do like to see your own writing don't you? So post a good article that you are passionate about and see how different the indymedia tactic seems to you. If you have problems posting, write to the editorial/help list. I can't remember the last email that didn't get answered either... GEEZ.
anyway that's my 2cents on it. There are some valid criticisms about the indymedia tactic and the community of posters that make it possible, but "banning", "censorship", and "independence" really aren't any of them.
I was a disaffected young radical when Seattle happened, wondering if anyone really cared that the world was being ruled by corporations that were leading us into oblivion, and it (especially the birth of indymedia)gave me a lot of hope that that wasn't the case.
When I say major mobizations I mean a large organized presence of radicals/progressives in the neighborhood of 10,000 or more, and none of those examples fit the bill (except Cancun and that's not North America, but that's a whole can of worms onto itself). I was at the RNC in New York and I would say that while there was a march of 400,000, no more than a couple thousand would have been considerd outside of the liberal Democratic tendancy.
As far as dismissing Amy Goodman for being a Starbucks liberal, with no proof provided. And Sirota who isn't actually challenged. Big deal, who cares if they are this or that. If they are doing pertinant investigative journalism chronicalling emergent social movements it is of little concern to me what they eat or drink in their spare time. After all Hitler was a vegetarian. The key to social change is political and social relevance, not strict moral standards based on assumptions the average person doesn't understand.
Again to address the point of "newness" and waves. My understanding of social change primarily comes from people I've met from Latin America, especially from indigenous communities. Where there is one movement that has been going on for 500 years. The name changes from time to time (anti-war, anti-globalization, anti-imperialism, feminism, etc.) but it is all considered a part of the same process.
War and labor disputes may always be around, and that's what makes them more meaningful. People are fighting to survive. An anti-war movement is a lot different on one side (marching in the street) and the other (having your house blown up and your family killed). As well as labor. Having to leave your home to move to a country where you don't speak the language, will be treated as a slave, and where racist politicians will try to exploit public fears to oppress you even more.
That 5 million immigrant workers would put their lives on the line (not exaggerating) to stand up for their rights on May Day 2006 to me is far more profound than any particular protest against the alphabet soup of global capitalist meetings. If that's not understood as social justice activism, that is a tragedy.
If everyone who took the time to write about what is wrong with Indymedia spent that time to put together a good reporting article, then there would be nothing wrong with Indymedia.
There are various hidden comments complaining about hidden comments. The hiding of comments is not a problem. What is a problem is the social tendency to complain and to put oneself at the center of the universe and think it revolves around that center.
Indymedia is and has never been a particularly useful tool for social discussion. Too much noise. Too many false people who purposefully stir up trouble and hide behind the anonymity. What it is, is a good tool for is news and organizing. If there is a problem with Indymedia, it is societal. Most everyone likes to hear their own opinions and thinks their own opinion has value. Opinion, for the most part, is useless. There is certainly no social discipline such that a person only offers opinions about that which they have some meaningful experience with which a worthwhile opinion could be formed. The self importance and entitlement is astounding.
Indymedia was born as a place for people who were ON THE STREETS in Seattle to post ACTUAL NEWS... to post WHAT IS HAPPENING in the form of written accounts, photos, audio, video. Indymedia is about ACTION.
Sitting on the internet complaining and pushing opinions on discussion boards is not action. Maybe there is some confusion on this point so I will repeat it: Sitting on the internet complaining and pushing opinions on discussion boards is not action.
Indymedia is a place for the news of the action of social movements to be propagated. If you cannot figure out how to get along with others and do something together, then figure that out. Escaping to the internet to post opinions in order to avoid your own isolation and alienation is just another way to pass time like watching TV. The internet has quickly become yet another way to avoid real life.
Get out in the real world, take some risk and challenge, do some hard work. Then indymedia (and the internet in general) becomes a good place to inform others through reporting those efforts. Actual reporting has never been hidden on this site.
If indymedia were really "dying," would so many people have taken the time to post about it here?
What a joke. How many times do I have to listen to some dork grousing about the "death" of one thing or another, just because they had nothing better to do at that moment? Sheesh. If you're on here worrying enough to write about it, and other people are answering you, then obviously, Indymedia is still here. Why do you care, anyway? If you think it's "dying," why don't you just go somewhere else, find something else to do? The rest of us can continue to post and read posts here, as we have since 1999.
>> There is no money involved in the process on any shared level of resource.
>Well, of course this is false. The question is, who would want us to believe this, and why.
Amazing how undisciplined the mind has become. Seemingly incapable of asking a simple question of clarification before jumping to conclusions of vast conspiracy. It is tiresome responding to the various comments that start with such an adversarial attitude.
It would be more accurate to say 'no institutional money'. Meaning, and for pdx imc only, that there is no funding from outside sources, foundations, non-profits, etc etc etc. Of course there is some money used (duh!). Every couple years there is a tech benefit to replace older equipment and at times, some individuals put some of their own money towards such equipment.
if the user base is in decline, it's either because the potential users are getting there fix somewhere else, or the user base itself is shrinking. we have only to look at the mainstreamification of dissent over the last half-decade to see that the latter is unlikely. so we're left facing the fact that there are other outlets for dissent/independent news that are for whatever reason more enticing than portland indymedia.
