Thanks also to Sarah, for your kind words.

I am not sure that I would be a decent docent. It sounds like a lot of work.

...it was a disservice to the planet that we had false or misleading information posted on the blog. I think that people can tell the difference between propaganda and weak argumentation on the one hand, and science and logic on the other hand. It is useful to go through the processes of refuting the wrong-headed thinking on the blog, in full view, for everyone to see. In fact, it is a public service, and you're missing a huge opportunity to educate people by not engaging folks who think in ways that you find destructive to the environment or humanity.

The bandwidth is not in short supply, Mike. We got plenty. If you'd like your message to be heard by the good people of Olympia, please take advantage of this channel to express it. But please also keep in mind that part of what we're trying to overcome here is the polarization, because that is what allows the big boys to do such bad things.

"Should Olyblog or any responsible venue for citizen journalism allow a person to post an article like the environmental disinformation post that olycop posted a week or two ago?"

Yes. Rick answered this point with the same reasoning I use for encouraging dialogue, that in order to counter disinformation memes "(i)t is useful to go through the processes of refuting the wrong-headed thinking on the blog, in full view, for everyone to see.". While I would substitute 'misinformed' for "wrong-headed", this is precisely why I think the web and its mass communication possibilities are necessary in the education against disinformation. Without a forum for debate right-sounding ideas remain right-sounding regardless of their veracity (3% isn't an amazingly huge amount worth being alarmed over, for example). The web and OlyBlog make it so that a docent or a blog administrator need not be solely responsible for "truthiness", rather, we all are. As Dan Gillmore says in We the Media: "To the extent that people become more engaged with the events around them, and especially to the extent that they become journalistic activists, they will be making better citizens of themselves. Tomorrow needs them." Our History books are littered with all kinds of falsifications that went unchallenged to the point of becoming cultural doctrine precisely because there wasn't a mass forum available for those who knew the truth. Forums like OlyBlog are precisely where we can try to work against the tides of disinformation memes.

You're right, the gun issue is an excellent example of a disinformation meme in action. As the initial assault rifle bans were directly aimed at disarming a radical Black Panther party, it's true that the U.S. Government has worked to disarm its populace as a means of control and intimidation. Yet, somehow this has been perversely twisted so that people invested in maintaining the status quo are worried about their government taking away their guns, while people arguing for social change are often found fighting for even more guns to be taken away further disempowering the citizens of a corporate sponsored government which openly supports fascist regimes abroad.

The abortion topic is, I feel, primarily an idealogical battle being waged through the English language. Choosing the term "pro-life" was a moment of linguistic genius when what they really stand for is 'pro forcing a woman to carry a developing potential human to term without Quality social assistance after the delivery (and often before) despite its ramifications upon her body and mind, but, to expect said society's scorn should the developing potential human develop into a criminal." Instead of having to defend this position the anti-choice crowd automatically assumes the moral high ground of protecting life whether or not they believe in protecting the lives of non-Americans, other animals, reptiles, and plants (as the name actually denotes). How do we work against such a thing? Again, I contend, by publicly contesting it and exposing its twisted logic (by publicly repeating its inconsistencies even when speaking with those who know, for example).

You bring up the example of Nazi Germany to exhibit the value of censorship. I would contend that anti-Jewish sentiment gained such a foothold precisely because it wasn't publicly addressed at an early stage, rather the Nazi party was seen as a bunch of fringe lunatics not worth the time and energy to actually address. Once the Nazi party gained power and the concentration camps were running the majority of Germany lived in ignorance as to what actually happened to their former neighbors. Would that the web had been available then so that images, videos and first person accounts could be quickly disseminated amongst the ignorant masses. While I (and I'm guessing you as well) told anyone and everyone that inhumane attrocities would naturally result from a war with Iraq it certainly didn't crack the veneer of social ignorance enough to stop the attack, so imagine how long even more people would continue to buy Bush Corp.'s lies about torture, rape and wanton murder being committed in the name of America without the mass public forum of the internet. Citizens of the Earth are now able to constantly provide us with the facts necessary to turn people away from disinformation who would otherwise be too passive to question or were caught within its meme. What good does that information do us if we're not actively using it to contest further attempts to obfuscate and/or lie?

My ideal society has the freedom to make choices based on verifiably factual information. I see OlyBlog as a great start in separating fact from fiction.

"Anybody who doesn't know that politics is crime has got a few screws loose."