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.

 

Netvocates: Our debunkers revealed

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
You ever wonder why some people on this forum just cannnot seem to accept that some very suspicious things happened on 9/11? No matter what argument is presented they will come up with some crazy counterpoint. They are sent off from sites like Netvocates, townhall.com, and others.



Basically, Netvocates is an organization that sends people out to web logs to post propaganda in comments. They appear to be tied to conservatives and there appears to be a tie to townhall.com, the ultra-right-wing web site.


This is from Netvocates:



The NetVocates Solution

NetVocates delivers a customized combination of monitoring, analysis and action to maximize the positive effect of the blogosphere for the client. The result for NetVocates clients is the ability to gain virtually instantaneous expertise in the area of blogs.

Monitor. The process begins with the account manager working with the client to determine relevant topics to monitor (e.g. key messages, brands, and opponents). Then proprietary technology is paired with personal research to effectively monitor more than 28 million blogs.

Analyze. A team of blog intelligence experts analyze content, tone and relative importance of the coverage, collecting and presenting the data in meaningful ways. This process distills blog chatter into actionable intelligence in a weekly report.

Act. Careful research and client consultation create a messaging strategy tailored to maximize the positive effect of key trends and events. NetVocates then recruits activists and consumers who share the client’s views in order to reinforce those key messages on targeted blogs – and rebut misinformation when appropriate.


Creepy people do creepy things, here is a link to the netvocates site.
www.netvocates.com...




posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Actually, why didn't I think of a service like this first?

What a great idea -- manage the crap that is blogged about your company/organization on the internet. It's PR for the 21st Century.

Huh...I think I will start a new business......



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
You ever wonder why some people on this forum just cannnot seem to accept that some very suspicious things happened on 9/11?

Mostly because people require evidence before coming to a conclusion?


No matter what argument is presented they will come up with some crazy counterpoint. They are sent off from sites like Netvocates, townhall.com, and others.



The NetVocates Solution

NetVocates delivers a customized combination of monitoring, analysis and action to maximize the positive effect of the blogosphere for the client.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before PR organizations went this way.

But why are you assuming that everyone that doesn't accept a particular 911 conspiracy theory is on their payroll? Isn't it possible that the theories don't stand on the evidence?



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

But why are you assuming that everyone that doesn't accept a particular 911 conspiracy theory is on their payroll? Isn't it possible that the theories don't stand on the evidence?


Please do not throw a blanket statement over what I said. I did not say EVERYONE that does not accept particular 9/11 theories. I do belive that unless you are deluding your own thought proccess if you think our stand-down from our airforce was an accident. Most people do not know how the proccess of military escort works when a plane is hijacked so it was easy to pull over on the people.

I didnt post this to argue the 9/11 facts, I just want some payback for those people that died wearing there turnouts. I know when I go into a building like WTC with fires like were burning that it WILL NOT have a global collapse. They teach us that in the fire accadamy.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Isn't it possible that the theories don't stand on the evidence?


Evidence? Like that stuff they took away to be smelted? You ever been to a fire investigation?!? You save everything that has to do with the fire! Dont tell me that they cannot wherehouse that stuff, there are plenty of empty wherehouses in NYC!!

They didnt investigate it properly because the governement told everyone the planes they saw hit the building caused the collapse, and that was good enough for the ignorant public. If they had done the investigation properly we would have the evidence we need! It was shipped overseas to be smelted and resold at walmart, so we cannot go to the evidence and show there was not enough heat to cause the collapse.

How about saying good find there LGM, that site is rather thought provocing instead you tried to derail my thread!



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Nothing like a witchhunt to liven things up...


I find the idea as nauseating as any decent person, but I think that this provides convenient ammo for character attacks, and that's not cool.

The great thing about people trying to covertly sell products, is that you can usually spot them on the net, they're simply not subtle enough (they can't afford to be, time is money, and spending months insinuating themselves into communities to make a couple of subtle cell phone pitches, or whatever, can't possibly be worth it from the perspective of the client).

But people selling ideas would prove much harder to spot, I'd imagine...

Maybe we should design a few tests for prospective members, taking cues from the burning times...

"Throw him into the lake. If he sinks, he's not a netvocate, and he will go to heaven. If he's a netvocate, he will float - and that's when we deploy the enraged hippo."



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

But people selling ideas would prove much harder to spot, I'd imagine...

Maybe we should design a few tests for prospective members, taking cues from the burning times...

"Throw him into the lake. If he sinks, he's not a netvocate, and he will go to heaven. If he's a netvocate, he will float - and that's when we deploy the enraged hippo."


If the information in the initial post is accurate, then I think the ideas being sold are going to be fairly simple to spot. They kind of narrowed it down for us already, wouldn't you say?


Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I find the idea as nauseating as any decent person, but I think that this provides convenient ammo for character attacks, and that's not cool.


No more than people already throw 'COINTELPRO' and such likes around. Why should this create any more problems than that? I think it's important that filth like this be exposed (If it's true), and I thank the poster for bringing it forward. Obviously not everyone who supports the official story are some kind of Cyber Right wing propaganda merchants, though, of course, even if you think their replies are stupid. But One or Two of them are. They have to be.


[edit on 23-6-2006 by Communication_Burger]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
so you mean there are people being PAID for posting here ? great, doesn't it feel good to deprive them of their bonuses by handing their virtual behind on a silver platter?

i mean imagine their p.o.v - certain forums must be the board warrier's nightmare, ridicule loss of money, self esteem etc, etc. If our counterparts are private PR agents, we don't need to worry, only the gov't pays their trolls regardless of success



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
They didnt investigate it properly because the governement told everyone the planes they saw hit the building caused the collapse, and that was good enough for the ignorant public.

What if.....the government didn't try to figure out if the government did it because....the government knew that the government didnt' do it.


If they had done the investigation properly we would have the evidence we need!

If there is no evidence, then how can you say that they definitly did it?


How about saying good find there LGM, that site is rather thought provocing instead you tried to derail my thread!




posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

What if.....the government didn't try to figure out if the government did it because....the government knew that the government didnt' do it.


Wow, what spin, spin, spin. I'm dizzy from that. How about the government trying to figure out how the buildings fell just for future engineers to know what not to do? How about them trying to figure it out for the safety of future firemen? I don't think we are neccessarily saying the government should investigate itself (that's up to independant investigators) we are saying that the government should have tried to figure out WHAT happened. Don't quote NIST or FEMA because by their own admission, they aren't sure either.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
[ How about the government trying to figure out how the buildings fell just for future engineers to know what not to do? How about them trying to figure it out for the safety of future firemen?


Amen to that brother! I cant figure out why this post bothered Nygdan and WyrdeOne so much, I mean crypes its a company that you hire to debunk the truth! I am sure the government hires them too.


Originally posted by Communication_Burger
But One or Two of them are. They have to be.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
They didnt investigate it properly because the governement told everyone the planes they saw hit the building caused the collapse, and that was good enough for the ignorant public.

What if.....the government didn't try to figure out if the government did it because....the government knew that the government didnt' do it.


A Long Kiss Goodnight can teach you a thing or 2 about this crazy statement.

www.propagandamatrix.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
You ever wonder why some people on this forum just cannnot seem to accept that some very suspicious things happened on 9/11? No matter what argument is presented they will come up with some crazy counterpoint. They are sent off from sites like Netvocates, townhall.com, and others.



Basically, Netvocates is an organization that sends people out to web logs to post propaganda in comments. They appear to be tied to conservatives and there appears to be a tie to townhall.com, the ultra-right-wing web site.


This is from Netvocates:



The NetVocates Solution

NetVocates delivers a customized combination of monitoring, analysis and action to maximize the positive effect of the blogosphere for the client. The result for NetVocates clients is the ability to gain virtually instantaneous expertise in the area of blogs.

Monitor. The process begins with the account manager working with the client to determine relevant topics to monitor (e.g. key messages, brands, and opponents). Then proprietary technology is paired with personal research to effectively monitor more than 28 million blogs.

Analyze. A team of blog intelligence experts analyze content, tone and relative importance of the coverage, collecting and presenting the data in meaningful ways. This process distills blog chatter into actionable intelligence in a weekly report.

Act. Careful research and client consultation create a messaging strategy tailored to maximize the positive effect of key trends and events. NetVocates then recruits activists and consumers who share the client’s views in order to reinforce those key messages on targeted blogs – and rebut misinformation when appropriate.


Creepy people do creepy things, here is a link to the netvocates site.
www.netvocates.com...


The fetus of yet ANOTHER conspiracy?? Good Grief? A bit paranoid are we??



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I have to wonder Vushta, do they ever nab you for long quotes? I know someone who got banned for using a quote that was more than 3 paragraphs and he even used the whole quote in his rebuttal. But, I see you all the time quoting a whole post and nothing is ever done to you? And this last one was just rediculus. I mean a three liner (which is really kinda a one liner with punctuation marks) to a quote of the whole opening post? Where's Mirthful Me?

Back on topic. How is he being paranoid? The web site even says that they do this.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   
A Two-Edged Sword

The fact that outfits like Netvocates exist does not support or undermine any particular point of view on ATS.

To assume that “debunking” is the only kind of service these companies offer is to completely miss the point.

They can also recruit “true believers” to promote any agenda the clients want, and considering how many people make money pushing “alternative” theories, there's already a sizable potential client base in place.

Thus to point a finger at anyone and infer that they are paid to disagree is specious and simplistic.

They could also be paid to agree with you.

The best approach in my opinion is to avoid obsessing over what other people think and focus on finding what truth we can.

To do otherwise is to allow the opinions of others to control our own behavior, and as far as I'm concerned, that's a step in the wrong direction.




P.S. What Netvocates offers on the Internet has been available in other forms of media for centuries. The idea of shills is as old as the confidence game. The defense: don't let what other people think automatically change your mind. Avoid herd mentality.

Question everything.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Good points Majic. A agree with you mostly 100%.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
What about people that are pro-UN or socialists or left-wingers? What about democrats and anybody that generally is not in power at the moment or any contending for power? Are these groups not sending out waves of young people to act as agents and introduce or stiffle commentary that they do not want to happen? I see it happening on both sides and I think it was the opposition that started politicizing the internet first.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
If the pay is good, i'll be posting the total opposite of my beliefs and make some money. A girls' got to make a living.

Seriously, at least this explains 2 members i can think off hand


Now we know. Money's involved. How much do they pay? Certainly they must pay something!!!!!



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I was around the advertising industry when "market maven word of mouth" was the newest slickest trick...
You could "buy" influencial people... (usually bored socialites, or wifes of advertising executives) to pump your product by being "the self titled authority" on choices...

they were literally like buying an opinion...
this is the same thing, but done on a much grander scale...

From a PR standpoint, this may be the best "product" they can create, to change public image on an issue, by far...

Personally, knowing these big guns are out there, and that the conspiracys still persist (regarding 9-11) I think it lends more credence to the arguement that there is a justifiable question of WTF on 9-11 (unless it is the 9-11 conspiracy buffs that hired the opinion).

Truth is truth, but that never stopped certain people/groups from convincing us otherwise.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I have to wonder Vushta, do they ever nab you for long quotes? I know someone who got banned for using a quote that was more than 3 paragraphs and he even used the whole quote in his rebuttal. But, I see you all the time quoting a whole post and nothing is ever done to you? And this last one was just rediculus. I mean a three liner (which is really kinda a one liner with punctuation marks) to a quote of the whole opening post? Where's Mirthful Me?

Back on topic. How is he being paranoid? The web site even says that they do this.


Thanks for the heads up on the quotes. I had no idea there might be a problem with it.

Hes being paranoid--in my opinion-- because he implies that there must be a reason for someone to have a different point of view than the CTs and state that fact in comments to posts on websites.--and that MUST mean those people are paid to decieve.

How is that different than people who accept the finding of qualified experts saying that anyone who has a different idea must be getting paid by some organization?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join