I used to read the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center's website frequently. I would participate in discussion via their comments, and in fact have even written a few stories that got posted to their front page over the years. I also donated money to their capital campaign and have paid membership dues in multiple years. But I just no longer see any point to it. This is because the debate on ucimc.org is not open (such as the way it is here), but is instead heavily censored.
Case in point. See the latest story on ucimc.org reporting about someone being held in the jail without seeing an attorney for unpaid debts. The article, by Brian Dolinar, chronicles the difficulties for a current county jail inmate who has been stuck there for six months due to money owed, and is critical of the State's Attorney for her handling of these types of cases.
I found the article interesting and generally agree that putting debtors in jail isn't a great solution, as you take away their primary method of paying back the debt---working. That said, when I first read the article, I saw one comment that hadn't yet been hidden, and it said this:
"Trolling" pretty much just means "disagreeing" at this point, right? Is there more to it than that? If so, I'd love to hear you explain it.
This was my first clue to check the 'hidden comments,' as there was nothing visible above this comment that would have led to it. If you aren't familiar, the IMC software has the ability to hide comments (as does most blog software I presume), and the IMC uses it extensively. So I checked the hidden comments, which you can also do here. What did I find? A couple of comments discussing the article and the merits of putting people in jail for unpaid debt.
I didn't agree with the comments that were hidden, but I can't see any reason for hiding them. They are asking real questions and reflect one point of view. They invite debate of the issues. That someone doesn't agree with them doesn't make them a 'troll.' So, having read that comment, then going on to read the hidden comments, I posted my own comment:
I can't disagree with Anonymous 10:36. Click on the 'hidden comments' link below and see what you think of the comments that were already hidden. It seems to me that the IMC site just plain doesn't support the idea of discussion on controversial issues here.
I'm sure you can guess what happened next. Yes, my comment was also hidden as a 'troll.' As far as I'm concerned, that's it. The end of debate. If one can't discuss the issues on that site, then the site has no purpose other than to be a PR vehicle. That's ok if it's what the IMC wants, but it's not what I thought they were about.
If you look at their mission statement, you'll find the following:
We will empower people to "become the media" by providing democratic access to available technologies and information.
Once most every comment by anyone who disagrees with the posted articles are getting hidden as 'trolling,' I no longer see the site as "providing democratic access to available technologies and information."
As a previous member of the UCIMC, a previous contributor of it's front page stories, and one who has donated many hours of time to the organization over the years, I can no longer support an organization that censors real debate. Further, I find it ironic that one of my best options for sharing my point of view is the right-slanted illinpundit website. However, on illinipundit I have the option of writing a blog post, others have the option of promoting it to the front page if they like it, and anyone can say whatever they want in the comments. That, my friends, is 'democratic access to available technologies and information.'
IThe IMC should turn off commenting altogether if they don't support it, and they should update their mission statement to reflect the change in attitude.
