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.

 

Seeking the advice and input of ATS members on an important issue...

page: 11
241
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 
This would be an act against the 1st amendment. Do whatever it takes SkepticOverlord. You have my support, and I've got your back!




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Go for it, they have to realize that "We the People" aren't going to take this much more we are waking and going to stand together for our rights.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Of course they want to kill the net as thats how the commoners communicate.Where do i sign?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 



I'm in! Sign me up also.

I will do what ever for the cause!



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I think a petition is warranted. The sooner the better. The more people that can sign it the better. This is just another deferring manipulation to control people's freedom's and rights. It is one more underhanded manipulation to control us and control the domino affect of information spreading that they fear and do not want.

They will use any excuse but the truth to make people believe it is for something entirely different than the very truth they seek to hide with political rhetoric.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
This is nothing more than another attack on small businesses. Of course, I will sign.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I don't actually see this as the end of ATS... or any Sites i'm putting up, I see it as a boost...

I'm not sure I want or need people driving traffic that won't consent to ads, if your unwilling to even consider buying something I recommend or my people are of no value to you and your not serious I'm not sure I don't mind saving the bandwidth...

Not sure as a Browser I would much mind clear terms of "what" is being tracked either....

I have no problem clearly stating that "The cookies I am using do not track any personally identifiable information" nor do I have a problem with the same for those that do, I'll I need my sponsors to know is that the click came from my site...

On those terms I have no problem signing up and being in agreement to be able to buy from a website I frequent...

I see things to consider...

Like Free pages with no ads to browse before agreeing to enter a site

Circles groups of websites that charge a minimum monthly fee for participation...

I'd have no problem paying .50 a month for access to a website I really like o5 4.95 for 20.00

In the end if sites are forced to charge small minimum monthly entrance fees to support themselves I can have a more stable base and earnings for my site's....

i.e. I think, I'm thinking I'd be happier with let's say 5,000 members paying 1.00 a month as a given and I know I have X for life and website support than the pure alone randomness of ads... or donations which can sometimes fluctuate wildly... I think I could count on those people to be serious members and perhaps make purchase join clubs accept my recommendations.

I can see where ATS would be hit having Thousands and Thousands of pages on the Internet... Then anyone randomly searching and finding has to sign the opt in before viewing any ad... so Less people will Opt in unless they really want to see the particular piece...

But for start up sites this could be better, your going to have have it a bit more fair back to those Goggle search ads head to head with more established sites.

I'd call ATS Mid sized...

And this a Boost not just for Large but also start up Internet projects

Mid Sized Internet businesses always seem to take the hard hits when changes are made...

Like Google always changing it's algorithms... really screws some midsized sites....

But there are ways to adapt to this.

And bottom line in the long run, I don't so much mind the opt in thing, it just ups the level of quality independents have to deliver... because we might be looking at charging small fees



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
If a petition is created, make sure it has legal weight, if such a thing is even possible anymore. Meaning real names. At least if that is the route you guys want to take.


Maybe just because I think a petition will ultimately be futile, but I think we should consider ways to regroup in the event of ATS being taken down completely. They can take out ATS, the website, but they can't take out ATS'ers, us.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
I would also support the creation of such a petition . The only other alternative I can think of is that is to move the ATS servers and other IT infrastructure to somewhere outside US jurisdiction.

Cheers xpert11 .



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Yeah, I'd support it. You know, it's a shame that the internet has been abused to the point that things like this are even an issue of debate.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Even though I'm not from the US, this is of course an issue which will severely hurt the entire global grid if it gets approved. Though this is just a small first step on the road to total www domination, it's an important one. Some countries already control which websites can be accessed by their population and it wouldn't surprise me if this will one day be the same for us as well.

If you get a petition going, count me in (if a voice from outside the US is of any use to the cause) My advice would be to start collecting 'autographs' sooner rather than later in order to get as much support as possible. Not sure how influential the voice of the people is nowadays but an attempt should be done to stop this.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
The only other alternative I can think of is that is to move the ATS servers and other IT infrastructure to somewhere outside US jurisdiction.


Another good idea.

Then the issue will become ISPs in the US blocking access, but I'm sure there are ways around that, as well, with proxy browsers and tools like that.


Move ATS to an independent island nation!



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 




The essence of his proposal is to require websites such as ATS to first ask your permission before using any third-party cookies. This would mean that sites like us could not display third-party ad networks until you opt-in with your approval.


...why? How?

Wouldn't it just mean that third party ad networks would adapt to no longer depend on cookies?

I mean...I clear my cookies regularly anyway. So maybe that means I get repeat ads more often than people who don't, but it certainly doesn't stop the ads from existing.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
OP says" This would mean that sites like us could not display third-party ad networks until you opt-in with your approval."

Don't we already do this in effect by agreeing to the TOS and agreeing not to block the ads? Correct me if I am wrong.. but it seems like it to me.

I would support a petition if you think this is what we need to do but I don't trust Congress to be swayed by our arguments.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 




OP says" This would mean that sites like us could not display third-party ad networks until you opt-in with your approval."


But it wouldn't mean that. It would simply mean that without opt-in, those third party advertisers would be unable to track whether you had or hadn't seen their ad yet. So ad providers like google will simply randomly deliver ads instead of tracking them and showing them in sequence.

What's the problem?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


What's the problem?





posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
My suggestion?

Base the site out of the Cayman Islands just like the banks and corporations do. Then it's all gravy baby!

What can we in the UK do for you gods of ATS?

The Para.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 




"slippery slope"


Please answer the question instead of applying rhetoric. I assert that the change will not interfere with the ability of advertisers to deliver ads. There are browser settings that disable tracking cookies as it is. Granted...I don't see any need for there to be a law about this when I can click a checkbox to get exactly the same effect...but I don't think the concern expressed in this thread is valid.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
of course, a one liner in your TOS saying to subscribe to ATS, you authorize 3rd party cookies to be allowed on your computer would cover your angle from what I understand.

I distrust anything the gub-ment does to fix the net...leave it be...leave net neutrality alone, and stop putting conditional clauses on what is and isnt acceptable for websites to do...here here.

btw, the only websites that would be effected by this would be American websites...nice way to sink small/mid businesses here and make overseas websites flourish.

blah.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Franchise is the name of the game for the Illuminati. Consolidating their control with dependent sources and eliminating competition to the max.

This impacts small business and their ability to advertise and remain independent? Not sure how cookies play in? Other than a cookie that identifies a session and that is not the only way to do that. Cookies really don't need to exist or store information about a user session. It may not give advertisers the ideal target marketing dollars but by itself it wouldn't eliminate advertisers. It may spawn a new cookie service that uses a single cookie on the users machine and maps information to a common databases used by multiple advertisers (cut me in for 10% of the royalties for this idea). Storing information on the users machine is really not a good thing and hardly lawful. It is clearly an abuse of private property. I wouldn't object to 1 cookie or a unique entry being available that my browser gives out. It would be superior to having n number of companies dumping junk on my machine. Really programs abuse the use of cookies and should use their own database to store the details.

I doubt if the founders of the bill have anything good in mind. I would be concerned for the vagueness of the bill and it's open ended interpretations. Another issue is what authority does the Fed have to impose such a thing?



new topics

top topics



 
241
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join