Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Inflammatory Flim flam
If you click the links, have a bottle of disinfectant or a hot shower on standby... You have been warned.
This article, the work of Faruque Ahmed (moron), which appeared in my referrer logs was (quite rightly) hidden, with the moderator's annotation "hidden by cam - inflammatory - give it a rest with all the zionist conspiracy postings".What wonderful advice. Naturally, it is ignored by Ahmed who blames Zionists for his tinea.
This Zionist Hypocrite who hates Indy Media made a fool of himself. He has been maintaining the proud Zio-Nazi tradition and refused to accept any criticism or contribution from others at all! He hates Vancouver Indy Media, Union Leader Faruque Ahmed and virtually every one.No Faruque. Only you.
Ignoring the advice to 'give it a rest', Faruque posted (amongst his daily internet-wide spew) this article where he continues to demonstrate his association with Stormfront. This article, remains showing on the Sydney newswire and stands as a monument to Indymedia's blindness to antisemitism and culpability in incitement.
Seriously, what exactly does Sydney Indymedia consider sufficiently "inflammatory" if not that? Having browsed what gets hidden, I can see plenty of articles critical of Indymedia get the chop. Antisemitism however receives the green light.
Update: The article, 'Bin Ladan's Diary' (sic) has after several days finally been hidden.
As claimed in recent comments to this post, it is traditionally here that Indymedia's supporters accuse me of 'not getting it' and insist an open newswire isn't the problem, it is only the people (such as Faruque) who are encouraged by it.
This argument, to the effect "It's an unmoderated medium, we can't be held responsible for its content" has previously been raised by other Indymedia moderators and I noted, by their choice to leave their site unmoderated, it was a total cop out.
In rather the same way you would expect not to be held responsible for someone getting shot with your firearm if you failed to take any responsibility for properly securing it after multiple warnings to that effect.Arguments as appeared in this blog's comments here that:
Not good enough. Sorry. You either want to be taken seriously or you do not. As an undeniably well-known site, until you take definitive steps to prevent the sort of material I criticize you for on this site, it's no use washing your hands of it.
wackos and racists will post wherever they find an open forum. (This story is an example of exactly that; it's not like Indymedia is the only or focal point for this junk. They spam it everywhere--to any open news site and message forum they findare similarly naive. Sites such as Stormfront, 9/11 Conspiracy sites and blogs (including this one) do not try to pass themselves off as legitimate news sources, much less as competition to the mainstream media. Indymedia however has, and therefore simply cannot be taken seriously. At all. Nor can any other "open news service" which happily publishes wholly unchecked and unedited material and refuses to be held unaccountable for it or clean themselves up.
Proponents of Indymedia however, despite its flaws, remain breathtakingly arrogant.
Admittedly Google seems to feel Indymedia is good enough.