A Conspiracy Against ATS?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by enigmania

 

My personal views on why a support the Ban does not need to reflect the admins views on the Ban. Everything posted on the previous page is my opinion.

However, the word "Revenue" directly translates into amount of people learning about conspiracy-theory, UFOs, etc. Actively promoting illegal activity to be featured here is something that would seriously undermine the validity of conspiracy- and UFO Topics.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by Skyfloating]

Allow the discussion of illegal activities and see your website disappear from google indexes, loose all its family-minded
membership and revenue.

Sounds more like an observation to me.

And we all know the definition of revenue.

At this point your just doing damage control.

reply to post by Komodo

It's just another point to think about. If they want data/info on what members think, what they value and what their stance is on Gov issues/president, they just have to login, post up a thread on data collection needed for the day, throw in a few comments to get the flames roll'n and wala! Then it's just a matter of copy and paste comments.

As for the hard core breaching of the T&C, it might be gov, but, highly doubtful, seems more like disgruntled groups of ppl or single elements (Crackers, pissed off members, ect) the question(s) to ask is: *If it is an alpha agency, is the data collection harmful? hmmm...not in that it brings down the site, but, it certainly brings out our core values.

The reason I'm here is to gather info...

The reason for gathering info... this could be multi-motivated.
What to do with info?
Pragmatical reason: Define and thus deal with a certain phenomena. (debunk it)

The very idea of ATS is to bring to light (by simple exposure and analysis) certain phenomena, or to shed different kind of light to a "known" phenomena and turn it into a different kind of phenomena (like 9/11 theories, each of them is a phenomena on its own right).

What can easily be distinguished from the analytical approach, no matter how shallow or deep it is, is READING certain meaning into a phenomena, which is an attempt of indoctrination - and that is, I believe, something that ATS should not allow and step in with the appropriate measures.

And what would some alphabet agency be interested in gathering from ATS?
Exactly this kind of "activity" of (political) agitation and directing people into certain mode/place/time of action.

I believe this is what ATS is trying to prevent.

"Hot" topics are those topics which involve agitation beyond interest on shedding light to a certain phenomena (Israel, religion, elections, drugs...).
Because of highly opposed opinions, the threshold of tolerance is under strain and discussion soon turns into a polemics (Gr. polemos = war).

This perverts the purpose of a forum of this kind.

reply to post by enigmania


If I were the site owner I´d be much more into revenue than they are. Revenue is required to maintain the site for free.

reply to post by orangetom1999


Outer space even.

I'm asking the site owner questions about his site.

Why do you think it's perfectly logical for you to bud in?

edit to add: Why do you feel called upon to speak for the man?

[edit on 1/3/09 by enigmania]

Originally posted by enigmania
So, what is it? I tend to believe the mod over the site owner.
Revenue does play a part in all this, like I said before.

If you refuse to read and/or believe what I post... what is the point of your continued participation here? It feels more and more like the purposeful disruption described in the opening post.

My comments are clearly laid out...

Update 1

However, as has been stated by myself and nearly every other staff member responding in this thread, we fully agree there are important conspiracy and cover-up issues that are part of the universe of drug topics, and it's unfortunate that those discusses devolve into unproductive chaos.

Update 2

Today, it's unlikely that our entire domain would receive an "automatic score" that would harm access to the entire site...

Civility And Decorum Are Required on AboveTopSecret.com

Our intent here is to operate a free and open discussion venue, where civility and decorum rule the day, so that the focus is on important and provocative issues, not each other.

Freedom Of Speech, ATS, and Ending The Eternal September

"Limitations" (on freedom of speech) is not the appropriate word, and (no offense to NovusOrdoMundi, but using his words to establish an example) in my opinion represents an increasingly common misconception or selfish interpretation of what free expression really means. The appropriate word, or better yet, the ideal state-of-mind, is that of responsibility. Free expression is not a license to offend, obfuscate, or lie; it's an opportunity to stimulate, challenge, and transform.

The Discussion Of "Illegal Activity" On The Above Network Sites
(Back in 2007, automatic filtering was once a concern.)

This issue is the potential negative effect certain drug-related phraseology will have on our domain as automatic filtering is applied to individual pages as well as an aggregate domain score for AboveTopSecret.com. Our founder, Simon Gray, is now a victim of this, as his employer chose to initiate such filtering, and he cannot visit the site or receive site email from work.

(But 18 months later, with higher traffic and a bigger footprint, it is not.)

Over the past several months, we have adopted a more lax approach to the interpretation of these rules as they apply to drug-related topics because automatic filtering of our domain is not as much of a concern.

And finally, our Terms & Conditions have long since expressed our desire to place a limit on topics if we deem some topics are counterproductive to maintaining a civil community.
Terms & Conditions

The owners of The Above Network, LLC reserve the right to establish limits on topics that may be discussed if, in their opinion, the discussion of those topics attract an audience that is counterproductive to maintaining the ideals set forth in these Terms & Conditions.

We've made it clear, in the wide-wide open, for a very long time, that we may choose to limit certain topics that disrupt the civil online community we attempt to maintain.

[edit on 1-3-2009 by SkepticOverlord]

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

Outer space even.

I'm asking the site owner questions about his site.

Why do you think it's perfectly logical for you to bud in?

edit to add: Why do you feel called upon to speak for the man?

[edit on 1/3/09 by enigmania]

Because you're asking questions on a publicly accessible forum maybe ? As opposed to a private, 1 on 1 conversation.

OOPS. Apparently I'm budding in now
Sorry, I should know my place

Originally posted by MacDonagh
Hm, ATS has attracted the attention of the Something Awful forums?

www.somethingawful.com...

Bumping this post and link because I think they're interesting and perhaps connected to the OP rather than to this peripheral definition of censorship issue.

I among others have noticed an increasing number of references to "conspiracy websites" in the mainstream media and even scholarly publications recently (say the last 6 to 9 months). Specifically, there has been an increase in the direct linkage of conspiracy theory and mental illness.

I'm tempted to see that as a reaction, conscious or unconscious, to a perceived threat. That conspiracy theory came out of the basement and tossed off its tinfoil helmets last year, and proved to have a pretty good grasp on the way the world really works. And the world is trying to sequester it again – this time not as eccentric and cute, but as schizophrenic and tragic or dangerous.

How does this relate to possible direct action by gangs of troublemakers against ATS?

Mostly because I suspect that in both cases – the juvenile behavior of the few "bad apples" here and the public media – there may be behind-the-scenes manipulation that the actual actors aren't even aware of.

It would be easy enough for someone to incite an "attack" on ATS among a group of bored forum browsers, without actually participating. And it would be easy enough for a news outlet owner to suggest conspiracy theory as a topic to write about.

Just some thoughts, and maybe a connection?

ps to enigmania: I think you have a debate set up already with intrepid, how about leaving the definition of censorship in that thread just so some of us can talk about the topic here?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


As long as you keep posting links to the T&C and stuff, and refuse to give me anwser to the questions I asked, and the statement I made about admitting to censorship, it is clear that I am definately making a point you can't or won't counter.

Congrats.

Deny Censorship is the new motto.

Originally posted by EvilBat

Just look at this topic alone, it was disrupted buy people back and forth over T&C, censorship, nothing to do with the topic They might not think is disruptive but I do, I'm a member here and I don't like the "We can say anything we want because of free speech", why not make a topic for it?

Sorry Nef, looks like another perfectly good thread has been derailed, despite best efforts.

We tried.

Originally posted by enigmania
and refuse to give me anwser to the questions I asked

As far as I can tell, I've addressed every point you've made. It's unfortunate that you don't accept logical common sense answers.

Do you have a specific example of a question or point for which you've not received a response from myself?

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by orangetom1999

 

Outer space even.

I'm asking the site owner questions about his site.

Why do you think it's perfectly logical for you to bud in?

because of this as in my previous post, Enigmania.

No you did not ask them to be answered by someone else...correct. But you posted them in a room where others could see them and are then wont to take offense when someone does. Yet contrarily ..you embrace those on this board who support your arguments. That is very strange behavior and also as stated ..intolerant. Suggest you make your points in private e-mail or U2U format to Skeptic Overloard if you do not want other replys to your posts. Otherwise you run the risk of totally showing your intolerance and weakening the points you are desiring to strengthen concerning being tolerant about drug topics. Your passions are working against you here Enigmania. Some people can see this...like working a rubicks cube..they can see around the corners in three dimensions.
Hope this helps you.

It is perfectly logical when you are posting in the main rooms and not in U2U or private e-mail. Why would you think that posting in this room is some kind of Holy Ground Highlander?? That it is illogical to respond. Take it to e-mail or U2U if it is a private or personal dealing as you stated in a previous post. Otherwise everyone will see it and be wont to comment as have I done.

Are you not now attempting to censor me while bemoaning censorship?? Doesnt make good nonsense does it Enigmania???

I tried to tell you about your passions. You are once again showing your hand without thinking about it. Dude..you need some work and practice before taking on this topic of censorship.

Thanks,
Orangetom