Censorship

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
Theft's picture
Theft
Offline
Joined: 17-08-11
Mar 18 2014 17:10
Censorship

Interesting how a IWA members post is left yet syndicalist post was deleted in "IWA in trouble?" thread, nothing like a bit of double standards from the admins.

Posted here as keeps getting deleted.

A Wotsit's picture
A Wotsit
Offline
Joined: 14-11-11
Mar 18 2014 22:58

edit: I deleted my comment as I was confused and posted something long & irrelevant which wasn't worth keeping.

I now understand why those comments were unpublished as they were off-topic and similar off-topic posts were left there as they also contained on-topic content.

Soz for contributing to the admins having to go to the effort to explain that at length.

This has motivated me to learn more about WSA if anyone would care to point me in direction of useful info on that org would be much appreciated.

Max_Anarchies
Offline
Joined: 16-10-12
Mar 18 2014 17:56

From following the thread you are referring to I got the impression that mods were removing comments that were off-topic. I'm pretty sure whatever you want to talk about would be welcome in another thread.

I think it's a bit silly to conflate this with censorship, it's not like anyone is trying to silence your views, they're just trying to maintain a degree of linearity in the thread.

A Wotsit's picture
A Wotsit
Offline
Joined: 14-11-11
Mar 18 2014 18:25

OK, my mistake. I have deleted that comment on the other thread as I felt it was off-topic. Bit confused now tbh (edit: just to say I am confused because I thought the unpublished comments were on-topic but now see why they maybe weren't- genuinely didn't want to shit stir- I'll get m'coat).

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Mar 18 2014 18:19

Christ.. What people will do to have a row.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 18 2014 18:27

I was perfectly ok with the request not to post on the WSA in the thread as requested by IWA peeps. I would disagree that its ok to have stuff on the IWW which mentions the WSA, makes certain viewpoints on WSA and then states there will be no discussion of WSA. I nean a comrade asked a question on the no contact thing. IWA peeps replied. And the specifics on the WSA were comradely. Now folks can get all bent out of shape about the other of my comments about organizational patrioitism and that's fine. But when folks throw that in the mix, they're basically telly you to shove it and we are not interested in anything having to do with you.

Look, i've no problem just letting this thing go.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Mar 18 2014 18:35
plasmatelly wrote:
Christ.. What people will do to have a row.

I blame Pastor Niemöller for threads like this.

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Mar 18 2014 19:21

Not sure it's such a big deal but It might have been better for admins to have split the thread rather than just delete posts.

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Mar 18 2014 19:30

Splitting threads is a laborious process due to how the site is set up.

If either of the people who had posts unpublished had wanted to, they cos have easily started a new thread (on top of several other WSA threads on the site). They didn't do this, they repeatedly posted on the thread after being told that if they did, the posts would be unpublished, which they were.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Mar 18 2014 19:35

Just to clear things up, if people want to start a new thread (or add to one of the older ones) about the IWA, WSA and IWW then that's absolutely fine. I don't know who got "bent out of shape" about syndicalist's comments but it definitely wasn't us.

As for why we unpublished syndicalist's comment and not others, I imagine (it wasn't me that did it but I saw the posts in question) it was because syndicalist's posts tended to only be about the IWA/WSA/IWW issue whereas others mixed it in amongst other on-topic stuff (which made it harder to decide whether to unpublish the whole post, delete a part of it permanently etc).

Mark wrote:
Not sure it's such a big deal but It might have been better for admins to have split the thread rather than just delete posts.

Yeah true, but splitting threads is a lot of work and posts have to be pasted over manually. This is really the result of the incompetence of a small, overworked admin team rather than an efficient censorship machine disappearing people's posts. Really someone should have also just sent a message to syndicalist to explain why his posts got deleted (I imagine no one did?) but again just us few knackered admins meant that it didn't get done.

Hope that explains and hope syndicalist isn't too bent out of shape himself. No offence or censorship was intended!

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 18 2014 19:57

My comments were responsive to what others wrote that specifically mentioned the WSA. Additionally I shared some history and tried to be as specific to what others brought up relative to
WSA.

I'm generally not rude and have tried all these years to be pretty comradely. I really have nothing else to add to this at this point.

A Wotsit's picture
A Wotsit
Offline
Joined: 14-11-11
Mar 18 2014 20:21

Yeah just to add although I now see why the posts were unpublished and do not wish to dispute the decision, I did think some of the unpublished stuff was related to the general evolution of the discussion at the time.

This is what gave me the impression of something more like selective 'censorship' or 'organisational secrecy' (for want of better phrases) and not off-topic unpublishing. I only say that to point out I see why there was some controversy or dispute over this. Not to say I think censorship was happening. (in any case, I was developing an interest in some of the unpublished content so was sorry to see it go, but respect the need to keep on-topic).

I can't remember exactly what was unpublished now- if it were still there I might be better placed to decide if I agreed with unpublishing it. (yes, I realise the absurdity of that statement).

If anyone can enlighten me as to where to find useful WSA stuff much appreciated (inbox me if inclined to do so, as posting links may be off topic?).

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Mar 18 2014 20:26

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=iwa+wsa+site:libcom.org/forums

Mark.
Offline
Joined: 11-02-07
Mar 18 2014 20:28

Wotsit - this was the main thread on the WSA's relations with the IWA:

https://libcom.org/forums/workers-solidarity-alliance/workers-solidarity-alliance-and-iwa

A Wotsit's picture
A Wotsit
Offline
Joined: 14-11-11
Mar 18 2014 20:33

Ah cool- google brings up the most relevant threads (I always use libcom search box and often can't see wood for trees).

Thanks no1 and Mark

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Mar 18 2014 21:07
Theft wrote:
Interesting how a IWA members post is left yet syndicalist post was deleted in "IWA in trouble?" thread, nothing like a bit of double standards from the admins.

Posted here as keeps getting deleted.

Post of 2014 so far.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Mar 18 2014 23:28

Yeah, as explained this wasn't any sinister "censorship" people are welcome to discuss the WSA on any of our many threads about it, or they can start a new one. It was just to keep that discussion vaguely on topic.

Theft has now been un-banned as well.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 18 2014 23:50
Steven. wrote:
Yeah, as explained this wasn't any sinister "censorship" people are welcome to discuss the WSA on any of our many threads about it, or they can start a new one. It was just to keep that discussion vaguely on topic.

Theft has now been un-banned as well.

Let's just say I think it was a sort lopsided way to handle it. There are many forums on many of the other group mentioned or topics discussed. This has just left me with a weird feeling. It's your show, so, I get that.

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Mar 19 2014 03:18

I don't think it was censorship or otherwise unprincipled and I get that the mods do a great service as overworked volunteers, and that people don't want yet another round of "let's go over people's bad feelings about this issue one more time." But I think the issue's actually relevant to points being raised as issues of principle in that thread. The WSA stuff came up because someone asked who was allowed to have contact with who, and a former IWA officer brought up stuff about the history of the IWA in the US including the US AIT setting limits on who non-US people could talk with in the US. Given what that group did, it seems to me a relevant situation for talking about possible difficulties with allowing a national section control over other IWA sections having contacts in a country.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 19 2014 03:49

Nate...I'm not clear about the Duluth group seeking a "no contact" policy with the IWW.
I am very clear that they were angry that people still had contact with WSA and this is their alleged reason for storming off out of the IWA in short order. I mean, that's the record.

And I will say this again, the WSA, in all its years as an IWA affiliate, always supported comradely relations between the IWA and IWW. Considering that for most of the WSA's history, nearlly half our membership was in the IWW, I mean, all things aside, it'd be silly not to have that perspective.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 19 2014 13:35

It's really just a discussion about Duluth entry it's and the IWW
But I am not clear it is accurate

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Mar 19 2014 20:48

Syndicalist, I replied in the other thread.

Jim, thanks for doing that.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Mar 19 2014 21:26

Saw it. But I would agree with Akai here about changing the thread title. It's very misleading.

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
Mar 19 2014 23:26
syndicalist wrote:
Saw it. But I would agree with Akai here about changing the thread title. It's very misleading.

double agreed.

it's about duluth wingnuts and if they wanted a no contact with IWW as well as the WSA people they supposedly expelled.

i worry that someone will eventually go to it looking for a US IWA section and find there is none and just a bunch of old sectarianism.

Theft's picture
Theft
Offline
Joined: 17-08-11
May 7 2014 09:44

I was banned for simply asking why a number of posts where deleted yet people shout abuse at others and nothing happens.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
May 13 2014 18:59
Theft wrote:
I was banned for simply asking why a number of posts where deleted yet people shout abuse at others and nothing happens.

apologies for the late reply. You were not banned for asking a question, you were temporarily banned because an admin had stated that the derailing of the thread had to stop on that thread, however you continued on about the other topic on that thread.

It takes us time to do things like unpublish comments and we are massively overworked as it is. For the site to work productively, discussions have to stay on topic so users need to follow our moderator instructions. So if users don't we can't spend all day waiting for them to post then removing them; if they ignore our instructions we have to temporarily ban them. And it was a shame to have to ban you because we really appreciate your contributions here.

As always, we don't bar any topics from conversation so if you want to discuss something else you can start a new thread.

In terms of shouting abuse of people, as you should know our posting guidelines forbid flaming, and where we said we take action, so if you point out where this has occurred we can take a look, so please let us know where this happened. Cheers

Theft's picture
Theft
Offline
Joined: 17-08-11
May 14 2014 16:56

But I never posted about the off topic issue with regards to the WSA.

Quote:
Any further posts on this thread about the WSA will be unpublished.

The only warning I saw was this one, however what I was asking was very relevant to above quote, but not actually about the WSA.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
May 14 2014 22:40
Theft wrote:
But I never posted about the off topic issue with regards to the WSA.
Quote:
Any further posts on this thread about the WSA will be unpublished.

The only warning I saw was this one, however what I was asking was very relevant to above quote, but not actually about the WSA.

our posting guidelines are pretty clear that questions about moderation decisions should be put in a new thread, they should not derail an existing thread:

Quote:
Querying moderation decisions on-thread derails discussions and such posts are likely to be removed. Repeatedly doing so will attract further moderation up to and including a ban. Please only query moderation decisions, using the feedback forum, if they do not appear to conform to this policy, not just because you don't agree with them. Reposting anything that has already been edited or removed by admins will usually result in an immediate ban.