We need a 9/11 news site run by
Adam Syed.
»
- Adam Syed's blog
- Login to post comments
|
|
|
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 53 guests online.
User loginNavigationFeatured Content WTCD Wiki WTCD Compendium WTCD Podcasts Glossary 9/11 TV News Archive 9/11 Unveiled by Enver Masud David Chandler's YouTube Channel Council for the National Interest Popular Mechanics: Money Masters Orwell Rolls in His Grave Reel Bad Arabs Recent blog posts
WTCD User Comments
|
We need a 9/11 news site run byAdam Syed. »
|
PollCan Maduro get a fair trial from Alvin Hellerstein? Of course, Judge Hellerstein is a jurist with integrity. 0% No, Judge Hellerstein works on behalf of the Zionist deep state. 0% Whether he does or not is irrelevant, Maduro is part of the op. 0% He will be bribed into pleading guilty to something minor. 100% Other (specify in comments.) 0% Total votes: 1
Disqus Comments |
And I'm not kidding. Stay
And I'm not kidding. Stay tuned. :)
To democratize or not to democratize?
In my view, the best 9/11 sites are ones where one person has unilateral control of the site, the benevolent dictator as it were. As "nice" as the alternative might sound on paper, a "team" concept is just too prone to infiltration and corruption.
A new 911 news site
Run by Mr. Adam Syed! Yes, is this coming soon? You would be great, Adam!
Lillyann
Thank you.
Thank you.
run it yourself
Hi Adam,
I think you're right. A one man management team with open and free discussion is your best bet. If you have to ban or censor people, make it public and open.
It seems pretty obvious to me but I think the mods at 911Blogger.com need to know that secretly banning and censoring people is not the best approach. All actions like that should be documented and available for review so you don't look like a shady disinformation agent working for the government who's attempting to secretly control information and discussion...you know....like 911Blogger.com.
An alternative to the 9/11 Blogger gatekeeping web site...
has been desperately needed for a long time. Perhaps one option is to have one person, like yourself, own and run it would be one way to prevent infiltration, but I'm not sure that would create the perception of credibility and impartiality I think would be important to garner in order for that alternative site to really become a successful alternative to 9/11 Blogger.
Perhaps one idea would be to have a board of directors that would include the most credible 9/11 Truth advocates and luminaries, such as David Ray Griffin, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Gage, etc.
Some thought should go into structuring it and promoting it in a way that draws support from enough credible 9/11 Truth advocates/"leaders"/activists that it has a chance of becoming a big enough clearing house to challenge the dominance of 9/11 Blogger.
Also, it seems that the resources and labor that would be required in order to create and run such a site that could actually upstage 911 Blogger would be more than one person could reasonable handle, unless that person is independently wealthy and has no other jobs.
Just some initial thoughts that come to mind...
What do others think about how to go about succeeding in putting 911 Blogger out of business, or at least ensuring that the [Real] 9/11 Truth Movement has a prominent enough news/clearing house web site that is not controlled by gatekeepers?
speculation: 911blogger may self distruct
Just thinking aloud, but 911blogger may go down the way David Shayler did.
This is how it could possibly work. Remember how 911blogger at one time tried to hook up as many 9-11 truth luminaries as they could? Why would a disinfo site try to get and promote the work of DRG, Richard Gage and Steven Jones even if the controlling mods are hell bent on promoting LIHOP and in fact frequently undermined the work of the same people that they invited to participate? My theory is that one day, blogger will do something so stupid that everyone connected to it would have their cred tainted. Get the best truthers in your house then burn it down.
I've seen the same type of
I've seen the same type of thing on other sites like GuerrillaNews.com which coincidentally included many of the same characters you see today. It encountered a few 'controlled demolitions' where all user content was deleted after a few years by 'accident'. Then after a few more years the site just shuts down and all the content that poeple have been producing since 2001 was taken down unless you were able and willing to grab it yourself.
Pages and pages of past conversations and content involving folks like Reprehensor, YT aka Cosmos, Sander Hicks, Danse, and many more just disappeared. Maybe the way-back machine has copies.
There was a time when I talked to YT each night and we hammered GNN for secretly censoring, banning and creating a counterproductive environment at GNN. It was exactly like 911Blogger.com is today. Bannings and blatant censorship and blatant double standards applied only to some people.
Then when it was shown the owner of the GNN was a propaganda agent for the US Gov. who was recruited out of Jerusalem to go into Gaza during 1998 to do work for the USIA, well let's just say it kinda hurt his street-cred and many left including Reprehensor, because of this. I'm pretty sure 911Blogger.com spawned from that exodus from GNN as well as TruthAction.org which I helped YT with at first but abandoned for various reasons.
Very sorry your past effort
Very sorry your past effort got wasted Jpass.
They (the disinfo mods) are loosing control at 911blogger, I don't think they will let the site flourish if it supports the real truth rather than the misdirection that they are probably tasked and funded for.
not wasted
I don't feel my efforts were wasted. In fact, I like to think I shook it up a bit and maybe helped closed the doors sooner rather then later. GNN was all about the Muslim Threat and Lappe' and Marshall probably still profit from it today.
I was the first person to take the time to figure out what A. Lappe' meant on his bio where it said "in 1998 I worked for the US Government training journalists". Can you imagine a Columbia School of Journalism graduate trying to convince his flock of leftist media-guerrilla's that 'he didn't know what the USIA was'. Or that he 'didn't know' he was given over $160K by the Ford Foundation to create content? Or that the main financier was the 'manager of acquisitions' for an Israeli billionaire Gil Schwed who's got his own shady secret military background in computers and network security?
Funny that I see YT at TruthAction.org allowing the same anti-truth decisions that he and I worked together to point out at GNN. It's the same stuff but he's now on the other side of the isle now-a-days.
wow
I'm truely amazed at the contribution you guys have done in advancing the truth. I can't claim to have done anything tangible.
I just hope my repeated critiques of Jon Gold on our site contributed to the defeat of the fake truth movement :)
well
well the problem is it might be a legend in my own mind. The the possibility exists that I have no idea what the true nature of these online interactions is. Many times there are people using multiple names and, in fact, i later found out an ally, YT had upwards of 20 or 30 different user accounts at GNN. We don't really know any of these people. So it's entirely possible I'm a legend in my own mind. Either way I like to think that I call it like I see it and let the chips fall where they may.
I agree with Juan
The simple fact that you were there when it was happening and have documented what you witnessed is a great contribution.
agree as well
The expose on GNN is permantly favorited on my comp. I used to really like that site about 5 or so years ago, I'm ashamed to admit.
i think we all have similar stories
of stuff we were into or supported before we knew better...
cred tainted?
I would argue that happened a long time ago, and its been well documented thanks to sites like this one. But I understand your theory about 911B purposefully trying to bring down others with it when it self destructs at some point. One can hope(that it self destructs, not that it brings down actual high profile 9/11 activists with it). Really though the 911blogger "brand" is so visible I wish some sort of takeover of it by actual 9/11 truth activists would happen. Would love to know who ultimately "owns" 911blogger...
well, originally it was...
allegedly dz aka Roger Peters, if in fact that's a real name/person. and Jon Gold was apparently there from the start, and currently claims to have co-founded it (as well as inventing the word "truther")
Didn't Peter Dale Scott piss
Didn't Peter Dale Scott piss all over the notion that Israelis had any role in 9/11? I could be wrong but I think I read something about that recently. Annd yeah, I don't know how to go about putting 911blogger out of business but I'm all about it....
Peter Dale Scott
Yea, I guess he said something along the lines of, "I haven't seen any convincing evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11". David Ray Griffin has made similar comments, I believe. It's frustrating and disappointing that some of our best Real Truth advocates are taking such a weak stance on the issue. Undoubtedly, part of their reasoning for taking this stance is fear of being attacked and marginalized if they take the opposite stance.
So, the question of which brand-name truth advocates/luminaries should be included in this new project is not so clear cut, perhaps. I think the most important thing regarding this Israeli/Zionist issue is whether or not those luminaries are actively trying to sabotage or smear those of us who are raising the issue and pursuing that line of research. If they merely took a stance along the lines of, "well, the issue of Israeli involvement in 9/11 is not my area of interest or expertise, but I don't mind if others want to discuss this and pursue it in a responsible manner", then I think they could still be a valuable and useful part of this group.
In fact, it may gain the group credibility to have a diversity of opinion on the Israeli/Zionist issue, again, as long as everyone agrees that, in the end, the truth should be followed WHEREVER it leads.
how far do you take circumstancial evidence?
because whereas the destruction of the WTC produced lots of physical evidence, we don't have much more of that otherwise. what we do have is lots of circumstancial evdience, and much of it points in different directions. i think that Griffin's mistake is not in refusing to take the circumstancial evdience of zionist/israeli involvement and run with it, it's that he does just that a bit too cavalierly when it comes to circumstancial evidence pointing to Bush/Cheney. of course, imho the reason that people like Jon Gold poo poo the focus on demolition is because that leads not through the White House as he likes to say, but through the office of one uber-Zionist, Larry Silverstein.
double standards and circumstancial evidence and LIHOP liars
Yea, I think you touched on the main issue in regards to the treatment of various kinds of circumstantial evidence in the movement with so much blatant double standards being used. When a group of people so consistently show bias in one direction towards the treatment of evidence that implicate one group of alleged perpetrators while showing bias in the opposite direction towards the treatment of evidence that implicate another group of alleged perpetrators, as is the case with the Lie-HOPpers, that should raise red flags about their agenda, I would hope.
Sometimes people we respect, such as DRG, do seem to take more liberties with the circumstantial evidence implicating Bush, I'd agree.
Why not do it here?
Hi Adam,
Why not post the news on this site? Nothing against you making a new website if you like to, but this site already has excellent analysis.
Of course the level of critique approaches paranoia, and every news item will be dissected to death before it gets any endorsement or acknowledgment that it isn't disinfo trash.
But time and time again this site has called out disinfo attempts such as the Shell (shill) Game, the NYCan ballot initiative, Jon Gold, Sibel Edmonds, 911Blogger, TruthAction, the list goes on. We have a healthy track record of calling out bullshit.
Isn't that the best place to read your news?
I (heart) JDLC
"Of course the level of critique approaches paranoia"
even the boy who cried wolf was right once... :)
True, though this site is not for everyone
Gretavo has specifically said in the past that it's not his aim to make this a heavily trafficked 9/11 truth site, nor is it really a site for those relatively new to the truth. This site is more for seasoned truthers and for intra-movement critique etc. As we all know, any time a forum DOES become "the" site to go to, and it's run by multiple people, it inevitably gets infiltrated. Before blogger, it happened to the Randi Rhodes 9/11 forum which for awhile was an excellent research forum, until DEW pushers and Randi kids [eta James Randi, not R Rhodes] took it over.
That being said, I have encouraged some people to come here as it is indeed a refreshing oasis from the suffocating choke hold that 911blogger has become -- WTCD members NorthSide, LillyAnn, and Adam Ruff have all joined here at my recommendation.
As for my own site... I've never created a website before so y'all are going to have to be patient while I learn the ropes... I've taken the first baby step though... I've purchased the domains [911something -- c455] dots com, org and net.
I would take the name out...
One reason the TruthMove boyz left new york was to study up on search engine optimization and fucking up other people's search results. Don't give them a head start.
I think it is time for wtcd
I think it is time for wtcd to be the mainstream. There is no longer debate on CD and even Israeli involvement is now accepted by a greater number. Wtcd's positions on these core issues have proven uncontested and the more convincing take on 9-11 over time.
If infiltration is a problem, your new site will face the same problem weeding out the infiltrators as this site has. Wtcd has experience doing this for a long time being the target of infiltrators whether it was mainstream or not.
Again I do not want to preempt your decisions, but there is much upside if wtcd became a source of more 9-11 news while at the same time maintaining its analytical prowess.
My thoughts were kind of jumbled
in my last post; I don't think this site has experienced the problem of being compromised precisely because Gretavo runs it either entirely alone, or maybe jointly with Casseia - I believe she has admin status. Since these two people are very good at weeding out the infiltrators (unlike the 911blogger moderators who often seem to play dumb), the site has proven itself to remain uncompromised.
Benevolent dictatorship is the way to go.
Gretavo = Boss Man
I have limited admin powers as well as the ability to argue with gretavo.
Frankly, I think the lack of transparency is much more of an issue than the collective vs. individual administration distinction. For instance, if we KNEW who was banning people, why, even who is currently an admin at blogger, we would have a basis to react.
I just loathe 1984-style "memory hole" administration, whether it is by an individual or a group.
my two cents
I appreciate Juan's voicing his support for WTCD. To me the fact that a small but significant number of honest folk continue to contribute here is all the proof I need that our efforts haven't been wasted. Now as to "becoming mainstream", I'm not sure how I feel about that. Certainly I don't think WTCD should be considered fringe in any way--I think we are far closer to the truther mainstream than the various LIHOP front sites. That said I think (and I apologize for using this phrase) WTCD is what it is, and part of that is a space to be irreverent as a means of undermining groupthink and orthodoxy. I just don't think my style and temperament are well suited to run a "general interest" site.
A certain amount of centralization can be beneficial, but we also need to be spread out so that should one site fall or be compromised, there will be other places where people can go and discuss that. Not all of these alternatives will be able to maintain heavy traffic at all times of course since the "commons" will always be competing successfully for traffic. The idea should be that the "commons" should be as transparent as possible--I agree with Cass that it shouldn't matter who owns/runs it as long as decisions are made openly. That includes a good voting system that identifies who voted how. It could even be facebook-style where you can only vote up, not down. One useful avenue of discussion and research could be on the subject of which platform to use. WTCD uses Drupal 5, 911B has upgraded to Drupal 6. But Drupal is just one possible platform--there may be others that have the kind of features that would be most desirable.
Once a new site is set up, the challenge is to make it popular, especially among "brand name" truthers. One way to achieve this would be to present the new site as a better alternative to the other sites, specifically citing the reasons why the new site is better--at the very least this would show people, including the big shots, just how flawed (and unnecessarily so) the other sites have been. This also means a well-coordinated marketing plan at launch time.
All of this is totally doable, worth doing, and now would be a great time to do it!
Speaking of which...
Another person I've directed over here is waiting for his new account to be approved --- he registered as "nipster." He's a good egg and wants to chime in here.
I've approved him...
Welcome, nipster!
Great to be here
Thanks for letting me in, this is a most interesting site, and I look forward to many constructive interactions here!
I encouraged
my colleagues from my local group to join here as well. I believe one of my friends' accounts is pending approval. I'm assuming he registered as truthmiracle, since that's the name he uses everywhere else.
Heck, maybe I won't need to make my new site after all!
But I own the domains for a couple years so I might as well at some point here...
What do people think about comment voting?
Obviously the 911blogger model is a joke and is the least transparent option possible, as has especially been evidenced with the CIT threads, whereby a comment can receive 10 ups and 10 downs and thus yield "0 points" as if no one ever even read the damn comment.
If there is a comment voting system, it should show total ups and total downs, simply for the sake of seeing how much interest a comment generates. That much is certain. What I'd like to know is if you guys think it would be a good idea to also show WHO voted either way, much like the Daily Kos does. That certainly would expose the political voting to the sunlight. Or, maybe it would make for a contentious atmosphere, I don't know.
Or, maybe the best option, like at this site, is to have no voting system at all; after all, truth does not equal majority vote, as we all know.
Transparency
I think voting only makes sense if people essentially have to sign their names to their votes. I don't know how hard this is to implement from a tech standpoint, but totals for both positive and negative votes could be displayed with the option to click and see a list of names. One byproduct of this method would be to reveal users who only lurk and vote, as well as clusters of users voting together. (Can you say "sock puppets"?)
And btw
If searches for your new site name come up "911adamblahblah.com = joo hatery" -- like a post on someone else's blog -- I'm going to say "I told you so." Jules has no reservations about dragging people through the dirt.
I sent Gret an e-mail about
I sent Gret an e-mail about that... I can't edit myself since you responded to the post. ;-)
Gotcha
I fixed it.
Journalism style is preferable
To be able to reach the mainstream orientated public (and not scare them away) I guess it's preferable to go for a journalism kind a style, based on information, not opinions. It's important not to profile ourselves as activists in the first place. The struggle for 9/11 is in fact a struggle for putting the information on the right places. The question is how to open the perception of news consuming citizens, those who are used to mainstream style but hesitant towards activism.
http://waarheid911.com [Dutch]
http://twitter.com/W911 [English]
an interesting suggestion
but would you allow, in your hypothetical ideal news site, for commentary?
Commentary? Absolutely!
Absolutely, there must be room for commentary. That keeps the issues alive and takes care of the context you're talking about. With information without opining I mean the articles, not the comments. More specific: scientific based articles and relevant mainstream news based on 9/11 issues. That may be both pro- or anti conspiracy or something in between.
My point is that we as truthers do not speculate or opine in main articles. Facts should speak for themselves. Let's forget the messengers in us, we don't need to heal the world. Information and more consciousness will heal the world ;-)
It's not very original, but good quality will mean everything for the acceptance from outside the flocks of truthers.
For every forum you need a bunch of experienced people who are able to bring a structure or framework into discussions that preserves a certain quality. Having that quality it will also attract the right public.
In fact what I'm suggesting is just what we already have, only that my accent is focused on the input of material, with the intention to keep that material on a high level of rationality and without anger or moral aversion or moral superiority.
Often times the news that is
Often times the news that is of interest to 9-11 truth is propaganda or disinformation. For example, when a novelist claims that he has a new book that contains 9-11 truth and wants truthers to push it to top of the best seller's list. Now wtiting that as news alone may be fine if the reader is a veteran truther who will have his own interpretation of the event. For the average folks however, they may digest the novelist's claims as honest and purchase the book not knowing that it was a previously used ploy to spread lihop propaganda.
In other words a plain news site can become a channel for the perpetrators of 9-11 to reinforce their disinformation rather than a source of truth.
I agree
there has to be context, especially given the fake nature of so much that tries to pass as 9/11 truth. just look at the crap that the truefaction people try to pass off at 911blogger without commentary. usually they only put it in context when called on it--and of course those who call them on it run the risk of getting banned for it.
an alternative
to a free for all comments section could be each registered user getting ONE comment to every story posted, which they can edit at will, giving their take on the story, and those comments could be rated so that the most popular appears at the top (with votes tied to names)
Not a bad idea
This idea, along with trying to ensure that everyone is limited to having only one username/account, seems smart.
Issues
Adam
I think comments are important, but I dont see any point in voting for comments. What you should be voting on is what is your best evidence etc, and then promote that heavily through links or blogs upfront whilst allowing for all discussion at the same time. If evidence is unpopular or suspect then the fact that your membership have downgraded it should be enough to stick the debate on a back page somewhere in case new evidence comes to light etc, and you only promote the best stuff through top 10 polls etc on the front page. If anyone keeps saying eg CD is inconclusive, then you can point to a poll saying well no 90% of us dont agree, and relegate that shit to some back page until it gains more support , and cut out all the noise.
Maybe you need a debate type format where a blogger supports a motion then others oppose it, then everyone comments, then people vote on the motion for or against.
The other question is how you define the eligibility for membership. If you dont want propaganda agents turning up in destructive numbers, then you have to define the membership as people who are against the OT or something, and as soon as they are out of line then ban them. I would also like to see some kind of membership consensus on banning disruptive users rather than secret arbitrary executive decisions.
Ultimately though the only advice I can give you is my usual
Change= Diversity X advantageous selection X amplification
and trust the membership to show how convincing something is.
the problem with consensus banning
is if one person is ultimately responsible for the site content (like I am here) When I've made decisions to ban people a main concern has always been the feeling that I couldn't trust the person not to post something which could come back to bite me in the ass--it's a judgment call and I may not have always gotten it right, but when the buck stops with you i think it changes the way you see things...
Good thoughts...
I'm leaning toward either no voting at all, or the kind Gretavo speaks of.
I think the occasional poll, such as the kind you posted that time at blogger, is a good idea.
one possibility
would be to actually form a formal limited partnership of some kind, complete with a signed contract and proof of identity (which need only be known to members). if a core group of, say, 8-10 people could thus be constituted then it's possible that the level of accountability and trust would be enough to lend the resulting organization/publication/site a great deal of credibility... just a thought...
limited partnership
Sounds good. How would this group of 8-10 people be chosen? Would invitations be sent out among the truth movement, and then the best candidates picked out? Or, would 8-10 people who are friends/associates be self-chosen?
Regardless, we can expect that when and if this group is constituted, which will necessarily exclude the fake LIHOP ("lie-hop") shills, there will be an immediate viscous campaign by those enemies of the truth movement to smear and discredit it right away - something along the lines of "a group of antisemitic, no-planer conspiracy wacko wing nuts are attempting to sabotage and take over the 9/11 truth movement, blah, blah, blah..." Therefore, it may be necessary to contact certain key luminaries ahead of time, such as Richard Gage, DRG, etc., to line up support in order to inoculate against this smear campaign, perhaps.
The lie-hoppers have already initiated a campaign to further divide and polarize the truth movement with their increasing attacks against David Ray Griffin and other advocates of the best physical evidence, so perhaps we should call their bluff and take the polarization and divisiveness that they started to the next level to help expose these lie-hopper shills' true colors for all to see. Maybe its time to force the issue and make people take a stand. They have the most to lose, because the truth movement is certainly not going to choose to abandon the cd issue to save the reputations of the lie-hoppers. They are sinking their own ship with their desperate campaign. Let the final battle begin...Either support the cd issue and agree that it is scientifically and observationally obvious and proven, while the hijacker nonsense is not, or shut the fuck up and leave the truth movement!
ok, and this is purely for argument's sake...
what I had in mind was people who already more or less trust each other (because they agree on more than they disagree) taking the next step and formalizing a relationship in the name of truthseeking. this would in theory accomplish a few things. first, the fact that a group of truthers would take this step would be a sign of maturity of the movement--the ability to move beyond the status quo of uncertainty about each other. such a group would not by default be credible but I think that would have more inherent credibility than something less formal. another thing it could accomplish is the ability to have a formal structure for establishing rules of conduct and decision making as well as for the establishment of a kind of joint custody if you will of the group's "product", that being some kind of news publication. responsibility and accountability then wouldn't have to rest on a single individual's shoulders--it would be formally shared, and if necessary formally unshared/dissolved/etc. maybe I'm rambling a bit, but I think the point is that with so much BS in the movement (a movement in theory with the goal of countering BS) it would be nice to have something real that we could count on, something not handed down from on high by who knows who, but by mutual agreement among like-minded peers who agree to be responsible to one another (though not necessarily FOR one another...)
I do like the first part,
@Allende Admirer
I do like the first part, but I'm cautious for the second. Of course it should be possible to ban certain kind of figures, but the remedy can be more harmful than the malady itself ;-)
The possibility of disinformation (agents) is part of the play, unfortunately. When a govt. guy Sunstein is advising such things, it's almost certain that it's already common practice.
Therefore we sometimes tend to be overcautious. We suspect people for being an agent, just because they have an opinion that is not very thoughtful, or even just because they don't share our opinion. Notorious conspiracy theorists with their suspicious minds do exist! You need just a few organized miss-information agents too keep many suspicious minds at work. One smart guy can also attract many idiots for following his slipstream.
This mechanism of being too cautious is in itself one of the strongest weapons against us and so easy to provide. The suspicion within our own working space is really the goal for organized dis-informants. It's very effective.
A real example that's really bugging me is the way how a growing number of 'truthers' is talking about Israel or Jews. I mean their hate, disgust or their certainty of Jewish responsibility for 9/11.
Why not treating this the journalism way? Just the cool facts and nothing more than that? The question of the Jews is always and everywhere a guarantee for conflict and screaming emotions. People just won't listen anymore to the substantial part of the message.
Therefore the best misinformation strategy is blaming the Jews. This is beside of the question if this is true or not. I guess it's effectiveness for ruining every discussion is even professionally being practiced by the Israeli government itself, or by friendly or unfriendly governments who tries to extract the attention from their own problems and scandals.
This functional use and stimulation of antisemitism is very clear to me. Still more and more truthers are falling into this trap, produce misinformation and harm the 911 truthmovement by greedy stepping into it.
Reason to use this example is this. Some of the same truthers who think they are pointing fanatically to the miss-informants and the guilty, are just acting the way (parts of) US Government wants to see them act. The only way to survive organized dis-informants is to stay cool and not being too cautious for every possible risk. Not being ruled by emotions. We should just stick to the facts. I like the suggestion of rating for best evidence. This will navigate our consciousness to the right spot.
be the mod of your own website
Another idea is for everyone to start their very own website where you alone are responsible for moderating comments and posting content. The only participation from others might be comments.
Drupal seems easy but you quickly realize it's time consuming to learn if you've never worked with it. Even then it can be a pain in the ass to keep modules updated and security patches installed.
I like www.blogger.com which allows you to use a domain name and also has a mechanism for commenting and moderation. You can even allow multiple users to add content if you wish.
I'm developing my own content management system that, hopefully, tackles some of these moderation issues while allowing easy integration with other websites who you want to network with. Sites appear as singlular sites but the content can be shared between sites you choose to network with. Although, at this point the sites you network with have to use my CMS in order to work together.
I think everyone should have a their own (just one OR mutliple) websites and network them with other people who do the same. Everyone is held accountable to their own content and words.
That's the best solution,
That's the best solution, but steering a website is a lot of work and asks a lot of skills. My main website waarheid911.com is without discussion. It's just explaining and showing information and sources. It's my most successful one. There's also my blog in the domain of a Dutch newspaper http://waarheid911.volkskrantblog.nl
That's easy to control. But my weak part is the technical know how to get a real slick mainstream-like appearance. I don't even try ;-). It's very time consuming to solely steer a website. I guess not very many people will succeed, but I welcome the diversity.
I like the 911Blogger formula too, but moderation seems a problem since I saw some of my articles refused even for my own blog (under their domain) without responding on my questions considering their policy. Still hope they will show more feedback to their 'co-workers', I mean their success is based on everybody who contributes with articles. They should be willing to connect with those people.
I guess I'm here because I don't have that biased sense that I find on some other 9/11 sites.
thoughts
Frank, I think JPass was talking about plain old blogger.com, not 911blogger. But I have an issue with what JPass is suggesting. To begin with, something similar was proposed by the truethaction crowd--Arabesque I believe--advocating a proliferation of individuals' blogs that would link to each other in order to boost page rank or whatever. I know a few of them did that, adding links to existing blogs (like Col. Jenny Sparks' or websites (like TruthMove) or just creating altogether new blogs. The way they did it seems to have been counterproductive since none of their sites seemed to generate much content, or I would guess, traffic. Linking to each other in a blogroll is easy, and may affect search results, but I don't think the effect is very significant.
On the other hand, if the idea of proliferating individual blogs is approached in the sense that JPass further suggests, using some kind of common platform that is designed to enable content sharing, then we may be getting somewhere. This could be something along the lines of a 9/1l truth-themed social networking site a la facebook, or something based on an open-source model. A question that would arise is hosting--do people simply open accounts on someone's server, or do they run their own content management system on a webhost? The latter is less prone to "dictatorship", but also more difficult for users to manage. The solution could be that anyone could make "pods" operating under the common protocol that could provide account hosting for the less technically-inclined, and with many such hosts to choose from no one need be shut out completely.
Again rambling as I brainstorm, sorry. The main thing of course is if something like that could be developed to make sure that key people participate--for this a case would need to be made for what the benefits are.
How do people feel about transforming this conversation into an informal working group with a clear agenda such as:
"As we approach the tenth annioversary of 9/11, we feel it is a good time to assess our progress and chart our course for what could well be the next ten years. Our priority is to revamp/reform the ways by which members of the movement communicate discuss, and inform each other of significant developments. We feel that the biggest problems with the status quo in this regard are:
1
2
3
And therefore aim to discuss, with an eye to concrete developments in the near future, possible solutions including:
1
2
3
What do people think?
i would add
another concern could be figuring out ways to increase the amount of public exposure of 9/11 truth issues.
also, a logical part of this would be to look at existing open source platforms to see what capabilitiues already exist or could easily exist with slight modifications to avoid reinventing the wheel... Without giving away any of your trade secrets, JPass, could you for example elaborate a bit on the CMS you mentioned and how it would differ from existing open source platforms?
and finally...
if anyone can think of a good poll relevant to this discussion, i'd love some suggestions, to replace the Sparksnark poll that is getting stale... :)
sure
You're right Gretavo, I was talking about www.blogger.com platform. My first goal with the CMS that I'm developing was to make it easy for people to manage multiple websites and easily access meta-tags that are important for search engine optimization. The mechanism is pretty much like www.blogger.com but with multiple websites.
Each website layout can be really different because I've coded the application so that, for the most part, the websites share the brain-files that run the sites. There is a single CSS file that is unique for each site and controls the layout.
Comment moderation is easy because the website owner is the only one who moderates. There is also an e-mail newsletter manager. You enable e-mail subscriptions and you can send to subscribers who sign up from your website. You can then send out newsletters through the CMS.
It's not much different from other systems I've briefly encountered.
The section that I've yet to focus on is the inter-connecting and networking features that could take place between websites / users. Generally, you would have your own site or sites set up and you could enable some sort of content sharing option. Then you could choose various users / websites within the network who allow their content to be shared. You also choose which content you want to share with others. Then it goes into a repository that other users can pick from when they manage their content and user contributed content that appears on their own website. The shared content would probably be more like links with summaries rather then entire pieces of content on multiple websites. Duplicate content is not good for search engine placement.
Basically, it's like Facebook except you have your own website and interact with others who have their own website. I've got lots of work to do but it is in action and I host and manage about 20 sites using this system which I would put at ALPHA development stage. All my users just manage basic content and none really get into social networking aspects like commenting and such.
To finally answer your question about what makes this different...not much..yet. Currently it's just a CMS with comments, some automated image processing, and a way to manage all my client websites with just one login.
I believe what will set this apart is the way in which I can have different users and websites sharing content, comments, advertising and more. I also plan to integrate the system with GOogle Analytics API so users can view Analytics stats from within the CMS for each website they have.
My original intention with this application was to create a multi-website CMS that teaches people how to create content that is well optimized for search engines. I also wanted a quick and easy way for me to update all my client's websites.
btw
I really don't have much experience with other CMS systems so I can't say too much about them. A big part of this project which is almost 3 years in the making was simply a way for me to learn and master my chosen scripting language (CFML) while combining CMS, SEO, E-mail marketing etc.
Blogger.com
@JPass
@gretavo
Yes, I was too quick with reading that link blogger.com ;-)
at the end of the day
At the end of the day I don't have many issues with the way 911blogger.com works. Just one really.
There simply needs to be trustworthy moderators who are willing to moderate in the open as apposed to the 911Blogger.com style of moderating which is to secretly restrict users and sometimes secretly ban users with no justification given and no answers to explain their actions. No one actually knows what is going on and why. The only people who see an 'agenda' by the moderators are the ones who have been banned or censored. The conversation is skewed but, in the case of 911blogger, this is hidden from the community as a whole.
The comment system there is
The comment system there is a joke.
How dare they think that Truth = Majority Vote!
By that measure, every 9/11 truth activist in the wider cyberspace would have their views voted down into the cellar.
Also, the whole business of long conversations (i.e. replies to replies to replies) forcing the comment indent to move increasingly to the right of the screen, until it gets so thin that there can barely be two words per line, is a farce.
With my site, everything will be transparent and I probably won't even delete offensive comments --- I'll issue a warning to the offending poster, but the offending post will stay up, so people know what line was crossed.
I do agree that other than the comments, and the lack of transparency w/r to the mods, that it is quite a well set up site.
Adam,
I loved the threads at blogger where there was much arguing and exchange of ideas. We have all been in homes or in families where everyone got along but nobody was alive and individualistic. I like to be in environments where I can say what I feel and so can the other. It's like writing with white chalk on a blackboard. The Jon Golds want to write with nice white chalk on a nice white background. You can't see a thing, of course!
So I am hoping your new site will be lively and completely uncensored. That's how we learn and grow. Already with the recent banning of you guys, the site is poorer. Arguing is good, even some shouting and going on and on (without the narrowing words)!!
I'm already getting bored at Blogger. Pretty soon Jon Gold will be posting and John albanese and the others can all say Amen.
Lillyann
oh I think RSS feeds are key
jus sayin', since RSS feeds are proliferating constantly updated links to your site...