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.

 

The SUSPENSION of illicit drugs/mind altering substance topics on ATS (The experiment failed)

page: 113
42
<< 110  111  112    114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It's not censorship in the "classic" sense.

Sure it is.

No, it's not. It's the subtle but exceptionally important difference between censoring, and censorship.

I really do see the two words as having very different meanings.

Yes, we censor words and topics as is our right of self determination in a private venue. Censoring is a narrow concept and has certainly been part of managing privately owned websites since there were such things.

Consorship is a broader legal abstraction that deals with the imposition of restrictions on private entities by the government or legal decree.

If you call a live sports talk-radio station in Philadelphia and start to slam the Eagles and praise the NY Giants, the host may hang up on you. He censored you... but that's not censorship.

But if the government suddenly told that radio station their news department should no longer cover negative stories about the financial crisis, that's censorship.

The difference may seem subtle, but it's vitally important to grasp.




posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRealDonPedros
We also make it clear through standards prohibit discussion of computer hacking and sex with minors... why has there never been any faux outrage about that?

Repeating my statement again does not give the meaning you suggest.



posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


No this was a business decision and unlike many other members I respect that. But as I am sure you all are aware this business is unique in its purpose.

Either way I am confident that this will be resolved to most reasonable peoples satisfaction.

Love that the owners are getting on the "factory floor" in a sense with this one.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Just an update, all....

We are still working to hammer out a compromise. We'll be updating this thread a couple of times a day.

If you have suggestions for any of the 6 of us, please don't hesitate to u2u any of us.

[edit on 3/2/2009 by skeptic1]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord


But if the government suddenly told that radio station their news department should no longer cover negative stories about the financial crisis, that's censorship.
No offence ment, but from the sidelines (ie- from where I'm sitting) this is just what it "looks" like.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I see you guys posting in the other thread are you going to do stuff about that or just the stuff in this thread?
*



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Ian McLean
 


I've tried to stay away from that thread since it has devolved. I am focusing on this thread.

If the others want to take things from the other thread, that's fine, but this is the main thread that we are dealing with.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ian McLean
reply to post by skeptic1
 


I see you guys posting in the other thread are you going to do stuff about that or just the stuff in this thread?
*


I'm participating in that thread purely as me; any suggestions about drug policy details are in my opinion completely off topic for that thread. I see no reason to scour the entire site for concerns and suggestions; for now this thread remains open and we are following it, and we can be contacted by u2u


Sorry if that sounded harsh, but I'm kind of peeved about the direction that thread went because I think it had a lot of potential for interesting discussion.

As long as I'm here I'll say good morning to everyone interested in what's going on and following this thread.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Double post.



[edit on 3/2/09 by americandingbat]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
This fear and distaste for discussion of drugs is irrational and absurd. It is also indicative of the mindset of SO and the others in charge. There is no fighting personal opinion that is irrational.

No matter what compromise the DISC works out, and I fear it will be the weakest one imaginable, the atmosphere here at ATS has been poisoned.

Will I stay? Of course. There is lots to talk about outside of the drug issue, and I would stay for all of it, but I would be doing so with a very wary eye towards the owners and mods to see what shenanigans they are up to. I would be here with a fair degree of skepticism, doubt and substantially reduced respect for the ethics of the place and the owners.

Perhaps that is the way I should have been all along, but naturally I am so trusting of people. As I've said before, this has been an education.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
It is also indicative of the mindset of SO and the others in charge.

What mindset do you believe that to be?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Censorship is the act of censoring.

I gather you think the reason behind your censoring makes what you do something other than censorship.

It doesn't.

The Government mandates some censoring here. So does ownership.

Both have the right.

Both are examples of censorship.

You're wish to call it something other than that? Just wishful thinking.

It is what it is.... Why not just own it and let it go?

In all the dictionaries I've looked in so far, ownership's actions match the definition of censorship perfectly.. The act of censoring.


.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Resinveins
I gather you think the reason behind your censoring makes what you do something other than censorship.

Correct.



The Government mandates some censoring here.

Not that I'm aware of. Do you have an example?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


This fear and distaste for discussion of drugs is irrational and absurd. It is also indicative of the mindset of SO and the others in charge.

------------------------------------------------------

I think he indicated the mindset with exactly the sentence he prefaced it with.

Are you a student of Akido Mr.Overlord? Its all about using another persons momentum against them. It seems like you're trying to get intelligent people to repeat themselves in the hope that you can twist their words into ammunition for your cause.

After researching "ATS's" origins and finding some amusing posts by the owner in which he was advertising for his new conspiracy site along with "get rich schemes", I can totally understand where you're coming from.
Its a business, first and foremost and an ego-trip secondly and.....maybe...slip a bit of truth in there with the odd yell of "DENY IGNORANCE".

Considering part of your motto is "RALLY AGAINST THE STATUS QUO", I can't help but think that Simon took his marketing course from the same guy that made the "EXTREME" doritos commercials.

There is nothing "EXTREME" about doritos and you are most certainly not "RALLYING AGAINST THE STATUS QUO".

Peace



[edit on 2-3-2009 by TheRealDonPedros]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRealDonPedros
Are you a student of Akido Mr.Overlord? Its all about using another persons momentum against them.


Someone's projecting far too much into our actions, and reading far too little of what we/I actually post on the matter.


Invasion of the Stoner Thread Snatchers:

This is the cause of our recent decision of no-tolerance. Our staff has the luxury of a bird's-eye-view of the forums that few members are able to notice. Over the past several months, we've noticed a disconcerting rise in the number of drug-related threads that are nothing more than thinly-vieled attempts to inject druggie culture into ATS discussion. Additionally, on more than one occasion, our staff has spotted online discussions by disruptive detractors, organizing to do just that -- screw with ATS by spamming drug topics. Over the past 10 days, a startling rise in gratuitous drug chatter occurred, prompting our behind-the-scenes discussion, which resulted in: A) a unanimous decision that drastic change was needed, and B) a very-close-to-unanimous decision to enforce a no-tolerance policy, even knowing the drama it will cause (and now, has caused).




... finding some amusing posts by the owner in which he was advertising for his new conspiracy site along with "get rich schemes", I can totally understand where you're coming from.

Projecting the 12 year old online postings of an exuberant teenager with a new website as the reasons behind contemporary community management decisions is irrational.

Yes, we are a business seeking to cover expenses and hopefully gain profit that is reinvested into the venture (the new media portal is one example of how profits are reinvested into something that benefits the community). But the the only resemblance the "AboveTopSecret.com" of 12 years ago has to the "AboveTopSecret.com" of today is in the domain name.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRealDonPedros
After researching "ATS's" origins and finding some amusing posts by the owner in which he was advertising for his new conspiracy site along with "get rich schemes",


that's an interesting insinuation. i've heard an awful lot said about ATS down through the years but this is the first time i've heard that mentioned.

it could be my obliviousness. would you mind offering a fews links or corroborations.

i like to know the folk lore, so to speak.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Yes. Anything that would constitute child pornography would be an example of government censorship.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Resinveins
 


As likely does any speech that incites the commission of any crime.



[edit on 2-3-2009 by loam]



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 110  111  112    114  115 >>

log in

join