A Conspiracy Against ATS?

Originally posted by DangerDeath
And here is an example how the OP debunks his own topic...

Hmm. Seems that you only read my post from about a half way down.

Maybe you should read it all. This is not a single issue thing.

reply to post by neformore

See, now I know you're just trolling I was merely arguing the counterpoint of something put to me by nyk - didn't you get upset earlier when someone butted in on your percieved conversation with SO? - seems like a double standard to me.

Mmm, did feel like you were targeting me there, maybe I misinterpreted it.

Besides, I was expressing my opinion. You're all for that aren't you? I'm sure I've seen you say that.

Definately all for that.

It's just my opinion that your opnion seem a bit biased when opposed.

Or are you trying to censor my opinion, by making out I shouldn't be expressing it in the first place?

You guys created this mess yourselves by denying the obvious.

Oh, you guys probably checked my history, you know just as well as I do that I'm not part of some program, so don't insinuate such things.

reply to post by neformore

Originally posted by neformore
I noticed that ATS was being visited by a "cluster" of bigots.
When the Israeli incursion into Gaza happened recently, we saw a massive resurgence in hate speech.

Originally posted by neformore
the eventual subject of choice for them at that time was holocaust denial.

I won't bother to go through this whole thread in case someone may have already confronted you on this apparent double standard. So I'll be repeating myself if this already been addressed.

It's funny how you mention 'holocaust denial' in relation to bigots and 'hate speech'. I get it, anyone who is critical of Israel is a bigot, or an 'anti-semite' and so on..

As a mod, I'd like to show you how Arabs and Muslims are being subjected to hate speech this very moment on ATS, but I don't see any moderator taking action right now. Here's an active example of turning a blind eye to real hate speech;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

While I appreciate addressing these issues, why not apply your moral vigilance there also? .. does that thread not also constitute hate speech? .. I'm guessing not, considering 'hate speech' only applies to Israel and Jewish people.

There is no conspiracy against ATS per say. Rather, ATS is the conspiracy.

Originally posted by neformore
Conversely, isn't it awfull convinient that someone showed up in a thread about a potential conspiracy and tried to derail it?

This is also a point worth considering... Like I said... the motives are more important than the message...

My posts should not be excluded from this line of reasoning.

Many people have. Many have said they don't think its an organised thing. Read the disclaimer on my OP again. Its in bold at the bottom. I didn't write it to discuss particular people, or any one particular topic. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to how the threads got to this point. Take the time to read it all

Which is what I was stating... it is entirely possible to refute in principal... but not possible to propose an alternative theory without the risk of being labeled part of the greater conspiracy or a disinfo agent...

Its an inevitability when talking with CTers.

I think you've known me long enough to know that I study propaganda in all its forms. Theres one happening on this thread at the moment called broken record

Believe me when I say there are much simpler ways of making a point - had I wanted to - than starting an open discussion about it. I can play chinese whispers as well as anyone.

A decent propaganda campaign executes a multi-faceted attack... using more than one method

I'm not saying you're running one, I am just pointing out that in the world of CT... we could go back and forth all day, pinning conspiracies on one another, all the while, not really accomplishing anything...

This was why I stood up for the guy getting pummeled by others in this thread... He was subltly proposing an alternative theory, and was attacked. Instead, possibly a constructive analysis of his idea could have been more productive.

I started the discussion because of something I see happening on ATS across a broad spectrum of things. As I keep saying, its not about one issue.

As someone who studies propaganda as well... it runs much deeper than a conspiratorial effort against ATS ever could...

You have to admit... there is a "collective" here... if you go against the collective, you're destroyed publically by the membership. I'm trying to study this collective... it would appear the propaganda artists.. whoever they are, have been able to successfully turn the membership into propaganda machines themselves... Its a very powerful passive control/propaganda tactic, and I'm trying to understand it...

What it is about, is artifically created issues, and people getting sucked into artificial drama, and then providing an audience for those with an agenda.

Exactly... but IMHO that is an oversimplification... its much much deeper than that... Very effective passive control measures are being employed from what I have observed.

reply to post by Majorion


That was exactly what got me started in the first place.

Nefermore and the pot and the cettle.

Could all the attacks and off topic banter in this thread be part of the conspiracy?

Certainly arguing over a side point to derail a topic is well known trolling method.

We have 17 pages here now and I do not have enough time to read them all, probably missing some good points along the way.

Does anyone have any kind of list of these internet rent-a-mobs? I know a few, but I am sure people know of more.

Could ATS put something in place like the Wikipedia Scanner website? That would be interesting to see!

If it became apparent during 2008 that RNC & DNC servers were being used by staffers to influence opinion here ... or cause disruption ... were complaints made to either organisation ? And if not, why not ?

I haven't a clue how Staff is organised behind the scenes. But I think you must start taking a more aggressive posture when it comes to deliberate disruption & to demonstrate to these individuals that ATS just won't lie down & take it. If people have been warned away from ATS & refuse to accept that, if they keep coming back to cause more trouble your ultimate sanction is to contact their ISP and have them warned off that way.

I only mention that in passing, I'm admin on a small gaming forum, nowhere near as large as ATS, we only this week celebrated our 666th member (freaky, huh ?). Our board was so badly disrupted we ended up having to pre-approve new members, to ban them from posting altogether until we'd IP & location checked them. And we had to complain to Comcast about one person, hand over IP details & logs etc, and it was only after that the member recognised the error of his ways. And he never came back.

Originally posted by Majorion
While I appreciate addressing these issues, why not apply your moral vigilance there also? .. does that thread not also constitute hate speech? .. I'm guessing not, considering 'hate speech' only applies to Israel and Jewish people.

Firstly, the last part of your statement is absurd, and from a personal point of view, offensive to me, because I have been particularly active in defending the muslim faith, and the position of muslim posters on ATS - pointing out the need for balance in criticism, and the utter stupidity of labels and hate speech.

Simply put - did you use the alert button on the posts you found to be particularly offensive? No.

I'm looking at the complaints right now, and theres nothing there.

Given the number of posts to the number of moderators, do you expect us to read every single thing on the board, all the time?

We rely on the members to alert, and then we take action. Yes, sometimes we see things ourselves, but if we don't get told we don't always know.

So please, raise an alert on the particular aspect and we'll look at it, but be aware of the difference between discussion and discrimination. It is perfectly possible to discuss the actions of the Israeli government without resorting to hate speech, and conversely it its perfectly possible to discuss radical islam without resorting to it.

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by DangerDeath
And here is an example how the OP debunks his own topic...

Hmm. Seems that you only read my post from about a half way down.

Maybe you should read it all. This is not a single issue thing.

I've read it twice.
I am simply pointing out a part in which you present some facts as taken for granted, while in reality they are a result of the present site policy (censorship).

Enigmania was trying to make you say loud that it is what it is - censorship -and you refused to do so, creating an unnecessary derailment of your own thread.

I understand that naming things for what they really are is one of the most sensitive things in political life, and you are practicing censorship for this very reason, thus creating a conspiracy of your own.

I don't see the reason for doing so. Is that the result of some kind of prejudice?

Originally posted by DangerDeath
I understand that naming things for what they really are is one of the most sensitive things in political life, and you are practicing censorship for this very reason, thus creating a conspiracy of your own.

Heres what I really think.

I think you are trying to make my OP into a single issue, when its not about a single issue.

I think you are using the broken record technique to do so.

I think thats quite selfish on your part, especially if you come to ATS regularly, and partake in the wealth of discussions on the board on many different subjects, all of which have been affected by what I outlined in my OP at one time or another.

I think the term "censorship" doesn't apply, for reasons I've previously stated and am not going to state again, and I'm most certainly not going to pander to your ego by debating it out again.

Don't like that? Tough.

I started a topic about a very real thing that happens on ATS, where people seize an opportunity to stick the boot in when situations arise - and sometimes those situations arise because they have been deliberately provoked externally.

Thats what I'm here to discuss. The issue you refer to is being discussed and sorted out elsewhere.

Originally posted by enigmania
I know, it wasn't a real issue for me, till they started denying it.

Your characterization of our/my response is incorrect. You have a popularized and sensationalized notion of the concept of "censorship" that is coloring your perception of our policies, and tempering the tenor of your contributions. We tend not to focus on the incorrect and fashionable (within knee-jerk anti-authority circles) notions of the idea of censorship, and instead focus on the much more correct and sober legal definition. In that regard, we are not engaging in censorship.

We're not "denying" as you put it, you're simply refusing to accept our point of view: a private venue has the right and responsibility to determine it's own destiny.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


That's just not true.

I already stated one time in this thread that I can see your logic, but that it's not my logic.

I also said I was ok with that.

The definition of censorship has been posted a few times now.

The fact that you don't see it as censorship from your perspective, doesn't matter, it's still censorship, by definition.

That was all.

You still won't admit it.

[edit on 1/3/09 by enigmania]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

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.)

Maybe the founder should spend his time working for his employer instead of checking posts at this site. That may well be a violation of the T&C of his employment. Many employers limit certain sites because they have nothing to do business operation needs.

reply to post by neformore

Before I became a mod, as a member, I noticed that ATS was being visited by a "cluster" of bigots. These people manifested themselves in a number of ways, some were subtle, some more direct. Their MO was to appear "reasonable" whilst they lined up their agenda, and then they banded in to promote it - the eventual subject of choice for them at that time was holocaust denial. There were two or three of them tag-teaming each other in threads, all with the same or very similar message. I could, and did, make predictions of who would post in certain threads at certain times.

This just struck a cord with me. You just wrote of a group of people for their unpopular beliefs.

Your are characterising them, but what did they do wrong exactly?

It gave me the feeling that this whole thread was based on these double standards.

Not that I don't believe that there are orchestrated efforts against ATS.

But if the attitude sported by Nef is common here, then ATS is definately part of the conspiracy itself.

reply to post by neformore


All threads on all forums in the whole world are affected by all of these approaches.

There is no way anyone in this world can prevent it.

The theme of this topic is totally empty and the intent of the OP was to announce who is the boss and that rules don't apply to the boss.

I am very sorry, but my experience in discussions with members of ATS were much more enlightening that this one.

I'm sure you wanted to bring this issue to such an end, you must have a good reason for that.

So slapping mouth is not reserved just for some "trolls", but for everyone who manages to see through the conspiracy.

Debunked.

The boss is naked.

Originally posted by enigmania
That was exactly what got me started in the first place.

Having had the chance to review the history of your repetitive and obstinate replies in this thread, my conclusion is that what got you started was the opportunity for attention.

Throughout all of history, there are no intellectual proponents of the abstract idea of freedom of speech who implore a totality of freedom in all cases and all places. Those who are much more scholarly than us draw such lines of concern on limitations as those that are narrowly defined and imposed by the state.

Your attempts at discourse are selfish and hollow for the purpose of some as yet unknown self-serving motivation. Had I known better, I would have assumed you were a nom de querre introduced into this thread specifically to prove the point(s) of the moderator's opening post. However, knowing better, I realize that you're simply nothing more than common Internet troll seeking attention and accolades for "sticking it" to the "ATS man."

reply to post by mister.old.school


Right, or was it that I was slightly more observant as most, and smelled something fishy?

I'm normally not this fanatic.

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by americandingbat
That's just not true – there are plenty of ways to disagree with the OP.

This is where I think you're wrong... You can say you don't agree with the OP in principal, but if you were to suggest an alternative theory, you would be considered part of the conspiracy. Thats the catch...

I don't see how "I think it's just disgruntled members," "I think it's just something that all of society is facing due to prevalent feelings of entitlement," or "I think it's just people angry at the limits here" are not alternative theories. And I've seen all of those in this thread.

I can say I do or don't believe there's one out there all day long, but if I were to state maybe ATS is the conspiracy, or any alternative theory such as that, it would come back to injecting potentially damaging material into ATS...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "ATS is the conspiracy." Or "injecting potentially damaging material." Honestly, what would be more damaging than a ten-page excursion into "just say you censor things" "no we don't" "just say you do and I'll go away" "no we don't look at this definition" "yes you do look at this definition" …

Enigmania is suggesting (in a less than direct way) that instead of a conspiracy against ATS occuring, that perhaps these issues are the fault of ATS itself... thus, and alternative theory...

If that's what he/she is suggesting, my reading comprehension skills are shot all to hell. Maybe that was the implication of his/her first post. But pages of demands of an "official" ATS admission of censorship buried any such subtlety.

In some sense, aren't all attacks on any organization the fault of that organization? Of course, if ATS allowed absolutely uncontrolled free speech, no attacks would come on it in the form of T&C violations committed to incite cries of censorship.

I think it's pretty clear in the OP that nefermore specifically and ATS management generally recognize that these phenomena occur as a reaction to ATS action. That's why the drug issue exploded when the announcement was made that T&C would be strictly enforced again.

If that announcement hadn't been made, that explosion wouldn't have occurred, the blanket ban wouldn't have become necessary, and we would have continued on the slow spiral downward that we were on for the previous couple of months.

Not to point fingers, but we could show just how successful this strategy is by doing a google search and reviewing some of the tactics that have been used by ATS members against other boards in the past...

No doubt. I would be disappointed to discover that there had been a concerted and organized strategy led by ATS administrators to attack another board in such a way though. ATS is not responsible for my or any other member's actions elsewhere in the interwebs.

Use a keyword like "censorship", especially in the climate of ATS over the last 72 hours, and you have a virtually guaranteed thread derailment.

Agreed... however, the blame can't reside on the person who brought it up, as it was briefly hit on in the OP...

This just seems disingenuous to me.

Censorship on ATS doesn't particularly matter to me... bringing out a truly unique perspective or theory on a site like ATS is not conducive to furthering the research... all that happens here is Debate... not searching for knowledge. Thus, why I research by watching how the masses react to propaganda and passive controls... If I published my findings on this site, we would just have people arguing and trying to debate, instead of reflecting and attempting to identify the evolution of new techniques...

I will go ahead and assume that you know this because you've given it a try. I've searched for and gotten rather a lot of knowledge at ATS myself, although much of it was found in dusty corners. And yes, for me also that has included watching how people interact on the boards, how people control and are controlled both consciously and unconsciously. It's an interest of mine as it is of yours, and I think of nefermore's.

edit to spell subtlety correctly

[edit on 3/1/09 by americandingbat]

reply to post by mister.old.school

Throughout all of history, there are no intellectual proponents of the abstract idea of freedom of speech who implore a totality of freedom in all cases and all places. Those who are much more scholarly than us draw such lines of concern on limitations as those that are narrowly defined and imposed by the state.

It is exactly in history, where the authority comes to play, when freedom of speech becomes "abstract".

Originally posted by DangerDeath
It is exactly in history, where the authority comes to play, when freedom of speech becomes "abstract".

Please elucidate on your intentions in that statement of yours. I'm not clear as to the intent of your meaning.