It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why are links to Wikileaks dot org banned?

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   
http://__._/


Seems like a strange site to ban considering the subject matters discussed here.




posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Yes thats odd..a reply to: freelance_zenarchist



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: freelance_zenarchist

I'm curious as well. Seeing as it was a dialogue between us that raised the question. :-p



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
IIRC it's a legal issue. Links to sites that have information acquired in less than legal ways aren't allowed.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But we can link to fox? A known misinformation propaganda machine?

gawker.com...

aattp.org...

www.politicususa.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

I can go on...
edit on 17-5-2014 by Justwatchingyou because: wanted to provide links to outside sources to my claim.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: freelance_zenarchist
http://__._/


Seems like a strange site to ban considering the subject matters discussed here.



Yep, that looked like ... "SPY-vs-SPY!".

OR

"Oh MY! Don't go to that World-Wide-Website!" ... ( then if they can't, then they'll try doing a contol-limit ? ).

It's getting to be like ... "ANYTHING WITH 3-LETTERS IS FORBIDEN !!!" ... ( like "WWW" ??? ).

AND THEREFORE

I can easily ENVISION many eventually deciding to go back to the ... Old-Style Dial-Up Bullentin-Board Systems.
.
Suspecting-Observation: ALTER-COMM ???



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Justwatchingyou

The difference is that Fox uses information acquired legally. ATS could get into trouble for linking to sites with illegally acquired information.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Justwatchingyou

The difference is that Fox uses information acquired legally. ATS could get into trouble for linking to sites with illegally acquired information.


You're going to have to keep saying that because people don't understand classified communications being stolen is inherently illegal. I mean, cmon folks...the name has LEAKS in it. LEAKS is not slang for information readily available to the public



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
IIRC it's a legal issue. Links to sites that have information acquired in less than legal ways aren't allowed.


Even if that information is vital to uncover corruption and the misbehavior of our governments? If it is the true side of a lie told to us at some other time.

Sometimes its impossible to get hold of information that would shed light on wrong doings in a legal way. But then, you know that is because its those bad people who are making the laws to stop you finding out about it.

So we can come here to deny ignorance. But only under certain circumstances and not regarding anything of any real substance?


When uncovering crime is considered a criminal offence...We're all doomed.

Just keep linking to the bullsh!t that MSM churns out. Should anyone accidently stumble across anything of any real importance ATS doesnt want to know. Dont want to upset the fat cats

I thought better of ATS
edit on 2608Sunday082014-05-18T02:08:26-05:000826 5 by Silicis n Volvo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Silicis n Volvo

not to mention there are threads here on ATS, about information Snowden leaked, complete with "stolen" slides...



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Silicis n Volvo

And what if that gets ATS shut down in the process? Now what have you accomplished? ATS doesn't get the protections that a journalism site or journalist gets.

Fox, or the other MSM get protection if they link to that information, ATS doesn't. Where they can print those stories and get away with it, ATS could get in trouble and potentially shut down for the same thing.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 03:03 AM
link   

origia little sted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Silicis n Volvo

And what if that gets ATS shut down in the process? Now what have you accomplished? ATS doesn't get the protections that a journalism site or journalist gets.

Fox, or the other MSM get protection if they link to that information, ATS doesn't. Where they can print those stories and get away with it, ATS could get in trouble and potentially shut down for the same thing.



I hardly believe ATS would get "shut down" for linking information.... If that was the case than thousands of other sites that "link" to wiki leaks would be shut down to. Besides is it illegal to "link" a site? I can understand storing leaked material .. But linking?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

It may not, but again, ATS isn't going to have the protections a journalist or news site does.

There's also revenue to keep the site running to look at as well. A number of sponsors may pull their advertising over it, and that's lost money for the site.

Ultimately though, we don't pay the bill for the lawyer or the legal fees if the site was taken to court over it. It's up to the site owners, as they will have to deal with the consequences.
edit on 5/18/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 03:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

It may not, but again, ATS isn't going to have the protections a journalist or news site does.

There's also revenue to keep the site running to look at as well. A number of sponsors may pull their advertising over it, and that's lost money for the site.

Ultimately though, we don't pay the bill for the lawyer or the legal fees if the site was taken to court over it. It's up to the site owners, as they will have to deal with the consequences.


See protecting " big Advertisement" sounds more logical to me ..
Heck why would ATS want to risk losing it's main revenue generator?
But at the end of the day I hope ATS understands that its "we" the members also drive revenue....
So the question is who's best interest does ATS have in mind?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Nevermind I am over thinking this....lol


XL5

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   
I would just hope that if there was world changing stuff, like the cure for cancer and/or a new energy technology that can end oil dependence, ATS would say to hell with the rules. The importance of the leak should be taken into consideration in my opinion.

What if wiki leaks, leaked information that all conspiracy websites will be shut down by the govt. . Would ATS allow wiki leaks?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   
We aren't able to link to the site.

We are able to post threads and comments on anything interesting from the wikileaks site.

Enter 'wikileaks' into the ATS search engine.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
hmm. YouTube show illegal stuff. if you click on it and download it it is you that break the law. is it spitefulness or what.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Self edited. I"m not going to go there ....
edit on 5/18/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
This isn't complicated.

ATS isn't going to put it's entire business at risk so that you can talk about how great wiki leaks is and link to it.

Every story regarding wiki leaks releases get talked about on ats. Because they use links from legal sources and websites.

It's nothing to do with anything, other than not putting ATS at the whim of the government and justice department.

How anybody could see that as anything but smart site policy is beyond me.

~Tenth



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join