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.

 

Are people paid to "steer public opinion on ATS"?

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by freight tomsen
There are most definitely government shills on here and I can name a bunch of them: [Mod Edit - Names removed from original and also removed from here] and many more. These agents cover the 9/11, Ancient Civ. and Military Projects forums.


Frankly, I'm disappointed I somehow didn't make this list and even more disappointed I'm not receiving a check from the government (though I must say that I think I'm more than open minded in the Ancient Civ discussions).

[edit on 6/0508/08 by neformore]




posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Some things to note on this thread.

Accusations against people without proof is Ad-Hominem. From the Terms and Conditions of Use



1). Posting: You will not post any material that is knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate.


(emphasis mine)

Giving your opinion is NOT proof. Disagreeing with someones stance on an issue is NOT proof. Unless you can conjour up a payslip from a particular body with the correct details on it you really have no proof at all. If you have no proof, afford the poster the same courtesy you would wish to receive yourself and do not make allegations against them.

Also, bear in mind that Ad hominem smearing is an attack on the poster. Again, from the T&C;



2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.


Lets keep things civil and sensible.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   
I definetly think that there are some disinfo agents working on ATS, but I also think that it's much greater than that. Not only are they US agents but from other countries as well. They also don't have to be government agents, but can be groups of nationalists organized and unorganized. It's also definetly not just ATS, I have noticed these kind of posts on lots of other websites.

I've noticed on sites such as youtube that there seems to be a lot of cyber bullying/gang warfare (yes I know how nerdy that sounds) going on. The most obvious case would be that of Chinese, South Koreans and Japanese who seem to always be trying to make each other look bad. I've also noticed on the Yahoo webpage how every time the poll has a question about the Indian cricket team it gets 300,000 votes in favour, and maybe 5-10,000 against. Whereas, the highest number of total votes for other questions never exceed 50,000. There's also obviously a lot of pro/anti American posts.

So my point is that it's not just US government agents, and that it's happening on a lot of other websites besides ATS.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:07 AM
link   
I think it’s just common sense that there would be Disinfo agents on any major board, with contingents from different powers involved. One of the methods I recognize is for a poster to pretend to support the position that they are attempting to discredit, and doing so in the most ill-spoken and ridiculous way possible, in an attempt to make those who hold that position look bad. I have also had at least two posts changed, one just yesterday. In both cases, it occurred just after the edit function had expired, so that I couldn’t change it back, and only one word was changed so as to make the meaning of the sentence the opposite of what it should be, and so give the whole paragraph a nonsensical appearance. I would hope that some back door allows a Disinfo type to do this, rather than one of the good folks at ATS being involved.

One thing's certain, there’s a fox around every hen house.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistor
I have also had at least two posts changed, one just yesterday. In both cases, it occurred just after the edit function had expired, so that I couldn’t change it back, and only one word was changed so as to make the meaning of the sentence the opposite of what it should be, and so give the whole paragraph a nonsensical appearance.


You are the only person who can edit your posts, apart from board staff.

If board staff edit a post an automatic tab is added saying who did it.

Having looked at the posts you made yesterday, the only changes made were by you.



I would hope that some back door allows a Disinfo type to do this, rather than one of the good folks at ATS being involved.


I would hope that people would not make unfounded allegations.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   
I think a good strategy when dealing with egomaniacs who want to stir the pot and see who they can fish out is simply to ignore them.
Not easy i know especially when it ticks you off, but ignoring is the best solution to end of the possibility of derailment into another topic or a battle of the wits.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   
Im sure that there are more than just government agencies taking a keen interest in ATS . The shrills and the pro prophecy authors for a start. One group debunking and measuring public response, the other, probably looking to identify the topics worth writing about. Both probably getting paid from diffirent external sources.. A community like ATS must be heaven sent to any government agency. They see what you write, think and believe and probably mark you out of 10. That would be 1 for a crazy, 10 for enciting rebellion/terrorism.

On a more positive note it would be interesting to obtain the info on who debunks certain topics all the time. Maybe if they are hitting the same topic it would increase creedence in the topic and the legitamacy of the points in it. After all what agent is going to debunk a crazy notion or idea when they know its rubbish.

Do those in ATS know who these agents are? IMO no, but they would surely be able to find out. My only concern related to the ideas raised by the original thread are based on someone being able to identify me personally and my address. There is software out there that can trace you through your ip.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by captiva]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Don't these kind of threads pop up every few months?
- ATS is infiltrated ...
- ATS is run by the gov't ...
- ATS has people on it that are disinfo agents ...


Originally posted by SonicInfinity
it is my opinion that there are some members on ATS who are paid to influence public opinion


You are welcome to your opinion however, I see no evidence to support it.

People come on here with strong opinions. That doesn't mean they are 'paid'. Well .. except for the influx of pro-communist-china posters lately. I have no doubt that the Chinese gov't DOES have some people online pushing their agenda.


Originally posted by thefreepatriot
The U.S government has agents working the internet forums...

I know that they have said they MONITOR some international Islamic forums for terrorist chatter. But that doesn't mean that they are on this forum and that they are being paid to 'influence opinion'.



If 'they' are trying to influence opinion here .. they are doing a lousy job of it.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
If there are people posting to ATS specifically to steer the opinion of people here, then they're doing a lousy job.


How can anyone be sure of that without being inside the minds of the thousands
of people who read posts here or the people that they talk with away from here. Situations are not necessarily the way they appear.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Yes.

for (int n = 0; n < strien(d); n++)
score[n] = d[n];



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


One thing is for sure about this topic; it is not new by any stretch of the imagination. A version of this thread must pop up every week.

You start out by setting rules that must be followed to reply. From that I get the impression you prefer to have only those that agree to participate? Since an important part of the process is an exchange of opposing idea's it is counterproductive to limit the content of responses.

For instance you bring up Lear and then make it clear that even though you reference what he is saying that discussing what he said is off limits. In other words, you are right therefore you do not want to hear anyone else's opinion on the matter. I followed every detail of what happened, it could not have been clearer that ATS bent over backward to accommodate him. Even to the point that ATS was accused of giving him special treatment. Why mention him if he is not relevant to why you posted this topic????

If, and that is a giant if, there are paid people here to influence the conversations, that would be a good thing. If an argument or the evidence will not stand up to opposition on its merit, there is clearly not enough evidence to even justify the topic.

I have no doubt there may be those working for governments who monitor the Internet based on topics of interest or concern. In some cases that may be a good thing and it may also be to influence opinion. Since it is part of their duties, they are indeed paid.

I'd assume they would watch for people who are potentially violent or who's activities could cause violence. It would also depend on the origin of the person. Someone from the Chinese Government would clearly have contrary interests to someone from the US Government for instance. It could be in fact, the person who is agreeing with you that is being paid to post. I could also be that in many cases a person disagreeing is in fact just being sensible or even the one who is correct.

The problem with accusations against individuals of spreading disinformation, is that the accuser may be wrong and the innocent accused, may be just be guilty of being correct. There are many topics here that are patently ridiculous on their face. Someone who is suspected may simply have information the other person does not have.

In the end, does it really matter? I don't think it does.

These threads on this topic often remind me of witch hunts. What is really being said is that if someone does not agree they must be a disinformation agent. How ridiculous is that? Logic is not even a component of that concept. These are theories being discussed here and by their nature I'd imagine most things presented on ATS are not true. Most information here is cut and paste from sites who's stock and trade is spreading lies for fun and profit.

I'm far more incensed by those who are knowingly spreading lies to enrich themselves. They use fear as a weapon to present their ideas. I'd imagine many Internet Sites have people here under cover to direct traffic to their sites which are full of fiction designed to sell books and tapes or attract hits and keep the counter spinning. Fear is a powerful tool and these confidence people know that.

Then we have the most dangerous types. Those who spread hatred and violence. Those who support Terrorism who may even be searching for recruits to their evil causes. If there are government people here searching for them; I approve.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by freight tomsen
I think it's also quite clear to those who have been paying attention long enough that the "September Clues" Hologram theory/No Planers were the government disinfo line/agents. Nowadays you hear almost nothing about September Clues or the Hologram theory because it is so clearly bogus government propaganda designed to make conspiracy theorists look ridiculous.


Or calling people 'idiots' who believe in some kind of conspiracy.

And ATS isn't doing anything about that.

....and when you call them childish (because of the way they react) they react very agressive and demanding in taking me back my words.

....most of the time they react agressive when they get in a difficult situation.

And they call me an idiot ?

Concerning there behaviour they are closer to the IQ-hight of an idiot then i am



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I agree. One must always check multiple sources and have a bit of skepticism.

reply to post by IchiNiSan
 


Sending a U2U with people you don't agree with an are currently in a heated argument with is good so that you can keep the tensions down, and yeah, your avatar is pretty truthful.

reply to post by Cthulwho
 


There is DEFINITELY something happening on YouTube. How do I know? Because a while back, I participated in a little of it myself to see how easy it was, and let me tell you, it is EASY. Without enough time and determination, you can do just about anything on that place.


Originally posted by FlyersFan

Don't these kind of threads pop up every few months?
- ATS is infiltrated ...
- ATS is run by the gov't ...
- ATS has people on it that are disinfo agents ...



If you have proof and can provide previous thread links, that would be great so that it can be added to the discussion.


Originally posted by FlyersFan

You are welcome to your opinion however, I see no evidence to support it.

People come on here with strong opinions. That doesn't mean they are 'paid'. Well .. except for the influx of pro-communist-china posters lately. I have no doubt that the Chinese gov't DOES have some people online pushing their agenda.



You can't say everybody except a certain group. If you believe that one group is doing it, it's possible that another group is doing something as well.


Originally posted by chinabean

Yes.

for (int n = 0; n < strien(d); n++)
score[n] = d[n];




Can you explain this for those who aren't as math savvy?



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
You can't say everybody except a certain group. If you believe that one group is doing it, it's possible that another group is doing something as well.


Actually, I CAN say that it may be that a certain group seems to be here. There does seem to be SOME evidence to support it. Not a lot .. but some.

China is a communist country and has restricted internet access. However, there are a handful of posters from China in the past month or so who have shown up and have been shilling the Chinese Gov't line. That doesn't mean that they are paid propagandists .... but it does raise eyebrows.

As for other groups - no. People in the USA and Europe have free internet access and some have strong opinions. Having a strong opinion isn't evidence. But having a strong pro-chinese opinion that comes out of internet-restricted china ... well ... that makes me curious.


As for the other threads that are like this one ... in the past 4 years I have seen them pop up every 3 months or so. I'm not going to go google through ATS and list them all. I'm just making a comment in passing. It's a pattern. Every 3 months or so .... no biggie.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

One thing is for sure about this topic; it is not new by any stretch of the imagination. A version of this thread must pop up every week.



As I told another person, if you have proof of other topics, please provide them. Saying "must pop up every week" is also a high claim, so if you can prove that as well, please do.


Originally posted by Blaine91555

You start out by setting rules that must be followed to reply. From that I get the impression you prefer to have only those that agree to participate? Since an important part of the process is an exchange of opposing idea's it is counterproductive to limit the content of responses.



I'm not limiting any content. It's already against ATS rules to hijack another person's topic on a different subject. For instance, if we started talking about the color "blue" and went on for pages and pages, you would consider that to be good? On the contrary, it's productive to keep the topic of discussion solid so that it keeps it moving smoothly instead of all broken up.


Originally posted by Blaine91555

For instance you bring up Lear and then make it clear that even though you reference what he is saying that discussing what he said is off limits. In other words, you are right therefore you do not want to hear anyone else's opinion on the matter. I followed every detail of what happened, it could not have been clearer that ATS bent over backward to accommodate him. Even to the point that ATS was accused of giving him special treatment. Why mention him if he is not relevant to why you posted this topic????



I only mentioned him on the grounds that people might have thought I was copying him. He mentioned "steering public opinion on ATS" recently in his 4-hour interview, although I had the phrase myself a while ago. Nevertheless, if I did not reference him and say that he said it, people who watched the interview would have accused me of stealing Lear's ideas. That is the only reason I brought him up.


Originally posted by Blaine91555

If, and that is a giant if, there are paid people here to influence the conversations, that would be a good thing. If an argument or the evidence will not stand up to opposition on its merit, there is clearly not enough evidence to even justify the topic.

I have no doubt there may be those working for governments who monitor the Internet based on topics of interest or concern. In some cases that may be a good thing and it may also be to influence opinion. Since it is part of their duties, they are indeed paid.



People are not as stupid as they type (most of the time). They can handle arguments on their own without paid professionals' help. Also, when these professionals are argreeing with themselves for multiple pages, it can be hard for somebody other than a moderator/admin to break it up.


Originally posted by Blaine91555

I'd assume they would watch for people who are potentially violent or who's activities could cause violence. It would also depend on the origin of the person. Someone from the Chinese Government would clearly have contrary interests to someone from the US Government for instance. It could be in fact, the person who is agreeing with you that is being paid to post. I could also be that in many cases a person disagreeing is in fact just being sensible or even the one who is correct.



Again, true, but we don't need Big Brother watching our every move (although they do anyway, but that's a conspiracy theory in itself that I don't want to derail the topic with). But again, they often do more harm in terms of the truth than good.


Originally posted by Blaine91555

The problem with accusations against individuals of spreading disinformation, is that the accuser may be wrong and the innocent accused, may be just be guilty of being correct. There are many topics here that are patently ridiculous on their face. Someone who is suspected may simply have information the other person does not have.

In the end, does it really matter? I don't think it does.



I agree, accusing individuals of being disinfo agents without a speck of solid proof is silly.


Originally posted by Blaine91555

These threads on this topic often remind me of witch hunts. What is really being said is that if someone does not agree they must be a disinformation agent. How ridiculous is that? Logic is not even a component of that concept. These are theories being discussed here and by their nature I'd imagine most things presented on ATS are not true. Most information here is cut and paste from sites who's stock and trade is spreading lies for fun and profit.



This topic is not a witch hunt (with the exclusion of the one person accusing tons of people, and he was dealt with quickly). Disinfo agents can both agree and disagree, even with themselves. Why agree with yourself? To test the public's strength at standing up against multiple people who may be wrong or right, and to see if the public "goes with the crowd". Why disagree with yourself? To see how the public reacts to drama. It's a double-sided, dirty coin.


Originally posted by Blaine91555

I'm far more incensed by those who are knowingly spreading lies to enrich themselves. They use fear as a weapon to present their ideas. I'd imagine many Internet Sites have people here under cover to direct traffic to their sites which are full of fiction designed to sell books and tapes or attract hits and keep the counter spinning. Fear is a powerful tool and these confidence people know that.



Fear, deception, excitements, chaos -- all of these are used to confuse and direct people.


Originally posted by Blaine91555

Then we have the most dangerous types. Those who spread hatred and violence. Those who support Terrorism who may even be searching for recruits to their evil causes. If there are government people here searching for them; I approve.



If there is any hate or terrorism being spread on ATS, I can guarantee you that most users will shut them down before anything happens. If it gets out of hand, a mod/admin will deal with it.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

As for other groups - no. People in the USA and Europe have free internet access and some have strong opinions. Having a strong opinion isn't evidence. But having a strong pro-chinese opinion that comes out of internet-restricted china ... well ... that makes me curious.



Again, never forget the people that do things "for the lulz". Some people don't really have a motive to mess things up other than the fact that it gives them entertainment. If you do not believe this, you should visit some other populated forums and watch them work.


Originally posted by FlyersFan

As for the other threads that are like this one ... in the past 4 years I have seen them pop up every 3 months or so. I'm not going to go google through ATS and list them all. I'm just making a comment in passing. It's a pattern. Every 3 months or so .... no biggie.



Well still, if you can find those threads (preferably in the pattern you mention, but if not, that's okay), that'd be good, since it would do nothing but add further information to the conversation.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   


First off, who uses words like "myopic" and "gadflies"? I hope you aren't trying to insult my intelligence. I can use big words too, you know.




That was the FIRST thing that came to your mind, really? That I use big words and you can too? Congratulations, would you like a cookie?

Why is that a bad thing? I suppose you view large words as anathema (uhoh) to your goal of swaying the simple minded around here. And nothing you said enraged me, so said appeasement was imagined by you. But I do find it objectionable that you SEEM to despise skeptics and debunkers so much. Lastly, when I said that there should be an equilibrium between skeptics and debunkers I SHOULD HAVE said between skeptics/debunkers and wide-eyed believers. That was a mistake on my part. Unfortunately, being a skeptic around here can feel like, to quote the late-great Bill Hicks, "walking into a clan meeting with a Boy George outfit on." People like you don't want fairness and balance as much as you want a forum with like minded people just agreeing with each other, patting each other's backs and basking in the glory of their own sublime "intellect."



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Threadfall

That was the FIRST thing that came to your mind, really? That I use big words and you can too? Congratulations, would you like a cookie?



Yes, I'd like a chocolate chip cookie with some mint sprinkles on top. Not too much though -- I'm sugar intolerant.


Originally posted by Threadfall

Why is that a bad thing? I suppose you view large words as anathema (uhoh) to your goal of swaying the simple minded around here. And nothing you said enraged me, so said appeasement was imagined by you. But I do find it objectionable that you SEEM to despise skeptics and debunkers so much. Lastly, when I said that there should be an equilibrium between skeptics and debunkers I SHOULD HAVE said between skeptics/debunkers and wide-eyed believers. That was a mistake on my part. Unfortunately, being a skeptic around here can feel like, to quote the late-great Bill Hicks, "walking into a clan meeting with a Boy George outfit on." People like you don't want fairness and balance as much as you want a forum with like minded people just agreeing with each other, patting each other's backs and basking in the glory of their own sublime "intellect."


Please do not confuse the words "debunkers", "skeptics", and "derailers", because all three mean something different, and I only oppose the latter. Besides, I, too, am an active debunker and skeptic in certain areas, as should we all be, so how can I despise myself? Debunking false information and being skeptical about wild, completely out-there information is what should come naturally.

[edit on 5/6/2008 by SonicInfinity]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Of course you're right, I'm just imagining things again. After all, there's no possible way that an intelligence agency could alter a post without you knowing about it.

[edit on 6-5-2008 by resistor]



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   


Then they have to keep reposting making sure that their opinion heard loud and clear that is is the "only" and "correct" opinion that matters. Hell, thats why I don't bother posting much because whats the point if all you're going to get is a bunch of snide remarks about how moronic and wrong you are.


If you quit posting then you allow them to win. I would like you to look at your post closely. In my opinion you are doing exactly what you are complaining about. You are asserting your view is the correct one. Then you complain about naysayers and then you naysay.



I thought ATS was all about sharing ideas and possibilities but all its turning out to be is nay sayers and know it alls who think that they are the only ones people should listen too and read their posts.


If you ignore the hostile posts, then they are defeated. I have using message boards for years. One truth about them is that one can select what they read and how they react to what they have read. It is the beauty of anonymity. One has the time to think about what can be said, and there is little bodily threat. As you and others may know people can abuse this anonymity though.

I was a message board that was mostly liberal, and a group of conservatives waged war. Due to the liberal slant of the administration they allowed the conservative trolls to remain. They flamed people constantly, they posted exagerated threads, they ganged up on people.

Finally the admins closed the site down due to this. I followed one of the most flagrant of conservative trolls back to his message board. he was smug with some sort of ego boost. He was a hypacrite. Allowing him to get away with his actions only enable his poor behavior.

People like him get a thrill from the attention. So the greatest defense in such a situation is to ignore their offense.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join