Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by americandingbat
So the ends justify the means? Like Bush & Co have told you, losing some rights is not a problem cuz now you are safe.
Bush & Co have been systematically stripping my constitutionally guaranteed rights from me in real life – where I have no choice but to
participate.
ATS has given me rights to post almost anything I want on their web site, using their bandwidth, with their optimization making my thoughts on
whatever subject turn up on Google searches for the entire world to read. They just haven't given me the right to discuss a few topics. But they also
do not interfere with my right to talk about those topics on other web sites.
The comparison is specious.
This sounds like the MSM business model to me. Homogenize, pasteurize and filter the news so as not to offend the mudane masses.
If ATS looks like the main stream media to you, stop hanging out in the news and politics forums and check out the Gray Area and Skunk Works.
Why don't you just admit, however ATS might have started, it is now a (big?) business, and the profit margin is the bottom line.
Have you read through the corporate website?
Here's the info on advertising. I admit I haven't
watched the video presentation for people interested in advertising, since I'm not that concerned, but it's there if you're worried about how ATS
gets advertising.
Notice, by the way, that this "big" organization looks big in part because it has three locations – New York, Oklahoma, UK. But that would in
reality be: New York (Buffalo – SkepticOverlord; NYC – Crakeur), Oklahoma – Springer, UK – Simon.
Yes, ATS is a business. And yes, they would like to make as much money off the site as they can
without compromising their vision. They've
been very clear about that.
Of course, I'm taking SkepticOverlord's and Springer's word that they are describing the site accurately in all that material. I see no reason not
to – all their actions and policies are in accord with what they describe as their vision for the site and with the described structure of the
organization. And if they're lying then they're opening themselves up to getting the pants sued off of them, and I think they're too smart for
that.
I should think that if there are bots out there preventing some people from accessing ATS, the solution is not to sanitize ATS but deal with
the bots. If I worked at such an institution I would be screaming to get rid of the bots.
Ever heard of "tilting at windmills"?
ATS has no power over other people's bots. And private companies have the right to censor their employees' internet browsing while they're at work
and using work computers.
Some of those programs even provide valuable services, like screening out porn sites so that schools can provide internet access to kids.
I will in future not look upon this site with such innocence and naivete, but understand it is not so far from the mainstream as the admins
would have us believe. Perhaps it is under the thumb of the PTB as well.
If this site is dangerously close to mainstream, it's our own fault. Guess who provides the content? And there is content that is outside the
mainstream but not related to illegal drug use.
And yes, ATS is under the thumb of the PTB, insofar as they must abide by the laws of the countries where they're located or risk being penalized or
even shut down.
And the bigger they get, the more important it is to toe the line that keeps them safe so that we can continue to point out the many ways the PTB
control society.
There are activist groups for your cause; ATS is not one of them. It can't be all things to all people, so it focuses on being the one thing it
always was – a bulletin board style forum for people who don't trust authority.
Originally posted by wayno
I think "they don't want it" and that is all there is to it. In earlier posts it was suggested that they didn't want ATS getting barred by bots. I
don't understand how that would work? You apparently can list the names of all sorts of drugs and not get caught by the bots, (or at least you don't
get reprimanded by mods) but the bots will pick it up if you talk about personal use? That just doesn't make sense.
Interesting to note that some of the mods on here are apparently moderating while on other jobs by the looks of it.
If only we understood the bowels of the org. Oh come to think of it, I don't want to. Far too complicated.
The bots can pick up numbers of references and put sites on a list. So a few references won't trip the sensors, but a lot (or a high percent)
would.
It's not implausible that there are multiple reasons to keep these discussions off the public areas of the boards, either.
As for having moderators assigned to drug threads to keep extra-tight watch on them – the moderators seem to be pretty overworked as is, especially
for an all-volunteer staff. Being a moderator here is not a "job" – it carries no paycheck or benefits. They do it because they care about ATS and
want it to stay great.
Also, I suspect that people are especially reluctant to flag posts that stray into personal use, compared to flame posts. So moderators couldn't rely
on members to report violations – they'd have to read every post carefully to make sure they caught everything. I don't think it would be
practical.
As for understanding the bowels of the organization, I really don't think there's all that much to it. Read the info on this site and on the parent
company site, follow the Board Business forum, and you'll figure it out pretty quickly.
[edit on 12/31/08 by americandingbat]
