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.

 

Google & Youtube Targets Above Top Secret? (and other conspiracy sites)

page: 4
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

I sort of see her point but at the same time she contradicts herself in her approach.

She says how nobody wants a world where we're just told what to think of correct by google and facebook and if we just turned off the computer and thought about it we'd realize people want to figure things out for themselves.

Well, ok. Then don't use google and facebook to figure stuff out then. Go and actually personally investigate it yourself then. I mean this woman has made it her life and work to use google and facebook to create her own views on what is really happening and produce a website promoting those ideas. So, yeah, I imagine if this stuff was to actually happen she'd be hit the hardest. But she doesn't have to be an internet self proclaimed researcher and investigator. She could go do some actual investigative work herself instead of using google if she wanted.

All of her information is being done by others and put online anyway. Nothing she's doing is beyond anyone else to do for themselves by having the internet. If she thinks the best thing to do is to turn off the computer and stop using google then she should start with herself.




posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

Thank you.

Those who remember life before the Internet know this.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: saint4God
That's the one, would the mods like to close this then since there's a lnk to the prior one now? Or is this one on a different enough path? You're pretty fast on the trigger FHomerK, you posted the next day of the video! I see yours was titled "Internet Censorship" in General Conspiracies. I don't know why it didn't come up on my search, looks like there's a thing or two I need to learn about Boolean. Maybe my search was too specific?


Ironically, ATS's search is powered by Google.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Which poses another question, why would google bite the hand that feeds?



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

But, what is that trust based on? Just a parent/child relationship? I'm sure you want the best for your children, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to give them the best information, only what you believe to be the best information. To give an example, look at both a Muslim family and a Christian family. Assuming there is a God, there's no guarantee that either of those religions is the correct path, but both will likely teach their children that religion based on their own beliefs. At least one of those families will be misleading their child unintentionally and possibly both families will be.

So, how can that information be verified based only on the information? One could be verified through a third party like God coming down and making a proclamation, but unless that happens all you have to go by is the information presented.

This is the issue that is trying to be tackled. It's a very complex problem and it applies to virtually everything. That's the basis of a consensus based system. It's taking a lot of different sources of the same data and comparing them, on the underlying basis that opinions and facts which come up often have more validity to them. It's not a perfect system, but for the basis of evaluating facts it's pretty good. It does tend to fail when evaluating opinions though, because it ends up regurgitating the same few popular ideas with little new ever being added.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

Not your fault at all. It's likely due to your seniority. Though how are newcomers supposed to draw the community's attention?

Then again I had one thread with almost 100 flags and stars and received 500 rep points from the mods. Though that was quickly taken away after heatedly engaging with members with questionable intentions...
edit on 13-8-2017 by HorizonFall because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sapphire
Which poses another question, why would google bite the hand that feeds?


They're pretty open to criticism, what they tend to not be open to is fringe ideas that have no basis in reality. They have a lot of people who discuss this stuff and figure out what is and isn't appropriate, not as a content filter but as an authenticity filter.

Some stuff really shouldn't be made available, for example RT is a propaganda machine that should be pages deep, if it shows up at all, the same goes for something like godlikeproductions. These are sources of "information" who primarily exist to confuse people and mislead them rather than promote knowledge. There's a big difference between silencing those voices and silencing someone who just claims that Google is Big Brother without having any of the underlying understanding as to what they're doing or how it works. The two tend to come together in a hatred of Google though because each wants to live with their own delusion and seek affirmation that they're correct in their opinions.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
I sort of see her point but at the same time she contradicts herself in her approach.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the 'bite the hand that feeds' approach (as Sapphire says), but admit I've done this a time or several myself. Curiously enough, the video came up as 'suggested' for me on Youtube, which partially deflates the argument that Youtube is burying conspiracy content in my case altogether.


originally posted by: mOjOm
If she thinks the best thing to do is to turn off the computer and stop using google then she should start with herself.


Well, yeah, if you want to introduce science and logic into the argument, but that's a little unfair and not what the internet was designed to do.

edit on 13-8-2017 by saint4God because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2017 by saint4God because: Less pronouns, more details.

edit on 13-8-2017 by saint4God because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan



RT is a propaganda machine that should be pages deep

Why do you feel this way?? I get more propaganda and less truth from our domestic big 5 than I ever see on RT. Do you actually watch RT?? They discuss significantly more civil and fact based than CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS or US today. The most extreme show they got would probably be CrossTalk, which is a very open debate platform between the host and 3 guests on video.

People keep calling it propaganda in the context as if everyone of our own news outlets which have been caught and forced to admit lying, and retract stories they stayed with for months they knew were false. It is all propaganda, but I get significantly more facts and truth from RT than the domestic propaganda provides.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
But, what is that trust based on? Just a parent/child relationship? I'm sure you want the best for your children, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to give them the best information, only what you believe to be the best information. To give an example, look at both a Muslim family and a Christian family. Assuming there is a God, there's no guarantee that either of those religions is the correct path, but both will likely teach their children that religion based on their own beliefs. At least one of those families will be misleading their child unintentionally and possibly both families will be.


A very good question. Truth above all, with honesty and integrity. I do my best to choose my words carefully and accurately. If I don't know, I'm sure to say so and will used words like "according to what I've read...", "many scientists believe that...", and "I personally believe that...". The problem with trying to force anyone (child included) into any belief is that it is shallow until they discover it for themselves. I'd not want to mislead anyone and lose their trust, but rather guide them to discover the truth for themselves. It pleasantly surprised me that my daughter came to a saving faith in God, but I can guarentee she didn't get vegetarianism from anyone in my house.


originally posted by: Aazadan
So, how can that information be verified based only on the information?


By definition of verification, I don't think it can.



originally posted by: Aazadan
One could be verified through a third party like God coming down and making a proclamation, but unless that happens all you have to go by is the information presented.


I've heard of people who are able to have faith this strongly and I admire it if it's the truth. I never had so I would not expect anyone else to either.


originally posted by: Aazadan
This is the issue that is trying to be tackled. It's a very complex problem and it applies to virtually everything. That's the basis of a consensus based system. It's taking a lot of different sources of the same data and comparing them, on the underlying basis that opinions and facts which come up often have more validity to them. It's not a perfect system, but for the basis of evaluating facts it's pretty good. It does tend to fail when evaluating opinions though, because it ends up regurgitating the same few popular ideas with little new ever being added.


Good points here, just don't think it's necessarily pretty good if the situation ever arises where one company/individual/country obtains complete control of information as in the case of other locales like China.
edit on 13-8-2017 by saint4God because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2017 by saint4God because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2017 by saint4God because: Clarity, grammar



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Sites like this one are definitely targeted, but not for the reasons you think. People spam these forums with nonsense because they know a lot of people here will believe it. So this is a test bed for ridiculous crap.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: HorizonFall
a reply to: saint4God
Not your fault at all. It's likely due to your seniority. Though how are newcomers supposed to draw the community's attention?


That is both unfair and unfortunate. I would revoke seniority to give credit where due wherever possible. As an example, I cannot stand the system at work where senior personnel such as myself get 'first choice' for vacation days. I do put in for some around Thanksgiving and Christmas before other senior personnel so that I can trade them with newer folks (who are usually the ones with new spouses, small children or have to travel to see family). Seniority is terrible even after understanding the concept of incentive.


originally posted by: HorizonFall
Then again I had one thread with almost 100 flags and stars and received 500 rep points from the mods. Though that was quickly taken away after heatedly engaging with members with questionable intentions...


Candidly I don't pay attention to these things on here. A good statement is a good statement no matter the person's background.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

I'm glad you got where I was going with that reply.

It seems there are a million and one self described "Truth Researchers" or "Online Journalists" now and they all act like they have real truth with an almost unbelievable arrogance. I mean just because you have a blog site and an internet connection doesn't make you a journalist or beacon of truth. None of them have access to anything nobody else also has access to themselves. They don't leave their house most of the time even or get exclusive access to anything. They just collect reports from any source that fits their agenda and string together theories. I've been doing the same thing here for over a decade and I wouldn't have the balls to arrogantly credit myself with such a title as they give themselves.

And since when is relying on "well established historical and scientific facts" been a negative???
I mean facts based on "consensus" might be a problem depending upon what is meant by consensus. But well established historical and scientific facts should be viewed as something you are trying to find shouldn't it??? It's like she's trying to say, "Oh, those well established scientific facts, you don't want to trust those. Take my unverified, unsupported opinions and ideas as true, but not all those crazy facts our there which have been verified." I mean are you crazy woman???



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5
Sites like this one are definitely targeted, but not for the reasons you think. People spam these forums with nonsense because they know a lot of people here will believe it. So this is a test bed for ridiculous crap.


This is something I'd like to hear some examples of. What kind of ridiculous crap spawns here in testing?



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

The owners of this site can tell you they took a cut in ad revenue from the ads on this site years back due to Google prejudiced policies against sites like ATS.
edit on 13-8-2017 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Skipping past all the good points you've made to address this question:


originally posted by: mOjOm
And since when is relying on "well established historical and scientific facts" been a negative???
I mean facts based on "consensus" might be a problem depending upon what is meant by consensus. But well established historical and scientific facts should be viewed as something you are trying to find shouldn't it??? It's like she's trying to say, "Oh, those well established scientific facts, you don't want to trust those. Take my unverified, unsupported opinions and ideas as true, but not all those crazy facts our there which have been verified." I mean are you crazy woman???


I'd like to split history and science here to address exclusively.

For History, to the quote attributed to Bertrand Russell, "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." (my copy/paste job wants me to credit the website www.brainyquote.com... ). This goes full-circle to Orwell's 1984, where to the victor goes the ability to write...or even re-write history. My college professor had a major problem with DWEMs as he called them, which he says stood for Dead White European Males. Oh the irony because he seemed to be only a few years away from being one of them. Never understood racism, let alone why hating your own race is somehow 'cool'. Back to the story, which is history seems to vanish on the side of the conquered. Funny that, as few overtakers wish to preserve the other viewpoint of events. It has happened a time or two, but rarely. Truth, historically speaking, becomes engineered and thus seems unfair.

Regarding science and as a scientist, I can say I've never been more unsure of anything physical until taking on the job of a biochemist. Very few things come close to working one hundred percent of the time. There are numbers, but they often "lie" (variable interference, for example) and there are machines which also "lie" (erroneous false positives or negatives, for example). I use the phrases like "probably", "should be", "most likely" and certainly not "definitely". The biggest blunder I think a scientist can make it putting full faith into a dynamic system such as the physical universe.

For these reasons, multiple answers paint the whole picture. It may be possible to arrive at the truth with one answer, but given humans and the universe, it seems near impossible to pinpoint with certainly without multiple paradigms of information.


edit on 13-8-2017 by saint4God because: Add adjective

edit on 13-8-2017 by saint4God because: Plurality

edit on 13-8-2017 by saint4God because: Closing statement



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: saint4God

The owners of this site can tell you they took a cut in ad revenue from the ads on this site years back due to Google prejudiced policies against sites like ATS.


I'd be interested in hearing what sort of prejudiced policies there were, or details in general should one of the owners be willing to expound.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

RT broadcasts in terms of Russias national interest. They are by definition propaganda. Our own domestic media has it's issues but they don't take marching orders from the White House, or anyone in government.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

YouTube Begins Purging Alternative Media As The Deep State Marches Toward WW3

www.activistpost.com...

It appears we of the alt-media OF ALL POLITICAL stripes are under attack!

The fact of the matter is that pro Trump right wing sites, left wing sites, and alternative in-between non-MSM sites are being purged from the internet. They call it demonetization




Left and right alternative sites are losing viewers at an alarming rate since Google, you-tubes owners started the demonetization purge

Truthout, a not-for-profit news website that focuses on political, social, and ecological developments from a left progressive standpoint, had its readership plunge by 35 percent since April. The Real News , a nonprofit video news and documentary service, has had its search traffic fall by 37 percent. Another site, Common Dreams , last week told the WSWS that its search traffic had fallen by up to 50 percent.


If you get your news from mostly far left sources, chances are you’ve heard YouTube and Google are censoring or blacklisting left and progressive sites and content. Conversely, if you get your news from far right sources, chances are you’ve heard YouTube and Google are censoring their content as well. If you want to know which side is being truthful in trying to expose their censorship, it is both of them.
In the last week, we’ve witnessed a massive crackdown on alternative media — the likes of which are unprecedented. Quite literally overnight, YouTube issued a sweeping update and demonetized thousands of video in accounts across the political spectrum.

www.activistpost.com...



Deep state conspiracy theorists are saying this is all a setup and a planned maneuver since the extreme terrorists and other extremists are using the web to spread their poison, the MSM and google think it’s a great thing to not only purge all crazies but other non MSM sites. They are using this as an excuse to get all of them, the good, bad and the ugly!


It may be a stretch to equate WWII with this move by the mainstream powers but maybe not



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: saint4God

..."(and other conspiracy sites)"

ATS is no longer a conspiracy theory website, its just a place where people copy paste from drudge report and other equally suspicious news sources. Then, everybody trolls.
edit on 13-8-2017 by CrapAsUsual because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
42
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join