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

Originally posted by Pathos

Instead of putting in the long hours necessary to become a success, the entitlement movement believes they don't have to work for anything. "Give me.. Give me... Give me.."

Sounds like the voice of a middle man. Is that you, Willy Loman?



Seriously, I think it's great that a website can pay for itself by sponsorship...whether by 3rd party ads or philanthropists. My only issue is that we are not scrutinizing the bill (proposal) itself and weighing the pros and cons as well as implications and alternatives.

Originally posted by Pathos
... I love how you spun this to say something completely the opposite, so you can gain support to keep your free income rolling in...

I can't tell if you're purposefully refusing to comprehend the issue and related effort involved in running an Internet business, or simply are unable.

However, if you believe this to be "free income" for no effort, I strongly urge you to take credit card in-hand and begin your own web site.

I haven't finished reading through this entire thread, but I think I've caught the main points.

First, I want to thank Skeptic Overlord and staff for asking for members' input before acting. I think that was a very responsible and open thing to do.

I do have some qualms about seeing ATS "break their own rule" against advocacy of a cause or organization and recruitment. Like most people with a somewhat conspiratorial turn of mind, I think that slippery-slope arguments at least bear consideration, even if they are almost always based in hysteria and misunderstanding. For instance, while I am (with reservations) behind ATS actively fighting this particular piece of legislation and encouraging members here to become educated about the issue and sign a petition or take other action, I would hate to see ATS encourage members to vote against this particular legislator when he's up for reelection.

I'm sure that wouldn't happen; I just want to express my reservations.

I don't see any issue with ATS as a corporation acting on its own behalf to participate in (or even take the lead on) a cooperative effort to get the word out publicly about this legislation. Certainly I support the rights of the owners as individuals to spend their time and effort trying to make sure this legislation is not passed.

Just some thoughts

Carry on the good work

**********************

Some more thoughts after having finished reading this thread:

One issue that has been raised is the question of whether we should further investigate the proposed legislation before reacting to it. I think this would indeed be a valuable discussion to have, and hopefully it is being discussed in mister.old.school's thread which is linked in the opening post of this thread. I don't see it as a major issue in this particular discussion, however: if ATS (as a corporate entity, not us as individual internet users and ATS members) wants to participate in what will likely be a legal battleground for quite a while, they may as well get started early. I took a quick look at KeepOurWebFree.com and was impressed and pleased with the coverage of the issues involved there. Some of the linked articles discuss the valid concerns that we all have about internet privacy and security and provide information and analysis about how online advertising that will be very helpful to people like me who are interested in these issues but don't have the technical background or professional involvement to automatically understand the intricacies.

Another point that has been raised in this thread multiple times, and ignored just as many, is that we already have the option of refusing third-party cookies or setting our browsers to inform us every time a site wants to set a third-party cookie. This legislation doesn't protect us from anything that we can't already protect ourselves from simply and freely.

Several people have pointed out that refusing cookies (or clearing them between sessions) doesn't stop ads from showing up. I believe that the issue is actually more to do with how much money people are willing to pay for an ad spot, and whether that amount is sufficient to cover costs. As I understand it, an ad spot is worth more money if most of the users will allow cookies that both keep information about what they might be interested in and will get a rotation of ads, rather than the same one over and over. It's not as simple as "if you ban third-party cookies ads will go away"; rather it's a case of it becoming harder for small and midsize sites to charge a reasonable amount for the advertising that shows up.

I sympathize with those who dislike advertising in general and targeted advertising in particular. It creeps me out too. But I really love that the things people write on ATS are so widely available. As far as I'm concerned, ATS does not only provide the valuable service of providing a place for people interested in certain topics to debate among themselves; it provides the even more valuable service of a platform for us to have our say, and for that to be read by (potentially) millions. But that means the kind of bandwidth and server costs that require funding. If I ever see SO or Springer's name topping the list of the richest Americans I may change my tune, but in the meantime I hope that the handful of people for whom keeping ATS up and running are making a good living doing so.

*****************

Do I still have reservations about using ATS as a platform to support this cause? Yes. But in this particular case those are outweighed by my feeling that the issue is one that genuinely threatens ATS as a corporation (and thus as the large-scale platform for alternative thought that it remains) and also that both the ATS community and more specifically the ATS owners and staff can make a valuable contribution in discussions about how privacy and security issues on the internet can be effectively regulated while preserving the viability of the internet as a venue for all voices, even in America.

[edit on 11/27/2009 by americandingbat]

*******************

And one final rant: Ack! For God's sake, this is not a liberal or leftist policy! I'm generally to the left of the Democratic party, so far as politics go, and it has Corporate America (read: money) written all over it. But let's not make it a partisan issue, please?

[edit on 11/27/2009 by americandingbat]

I am actually kind of surprised by this. The Democrats in SW VA are not very liberal, and the only reason that they even manage to get elected down there, is because it happens to be Coal Country (Even though the Commonwealth does not allow Unions). This sounds like an EXTREMELY leftist policy courtesy of Pelosi or someone within her short-list of friends, so I must admit that the source of such legislation is somewhat surprising. I am certain that classic Liberals and true Conservatives alike, will be against such measures.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Pathos
... I love how you spun this to say something completely the opposite, so you can gain support to keep your free income rolling in...

I can't tell if you're purposefully refusing to comprehend the issue and related effort involved in running an Internet business, or simply are unable.

However, if you believe this to be "free income" for no effort, I strongly urge you to take credit card in-hand and begin your own web site.

Oh boy, can I attest to the latter comment. I had to recently spend a serious amount of dough simply to get my Domain Names secured, Hosting set-up, and have the proper amount of Security put in place, and yet, my site is nowhere near as elaborate and bandwidth intensive as yours (At least not yet ).

Not to mention the Coding, Constant Updating, Editing, Moderating, etc. After my initial set-up (On my second site), I have for the past month completely ignored it simply out of my attempt to avoid severe frustration. Anyone who creates a site has a right to income based upon it, and I can only hope that my own site begins to bring in some profit before a year has passed.

Originally posted by Pathos
Instead of putting in the long hours necessary to become a success, ...

Years spent building, creating, upgrading and enhancing softwares, technologies and infrastructure to not only attract but also to accommodate the Ever-Increasing numbers of folks who choose to participate in and/or contribute their thoughts, efforts, opinions or concerns to the same == What does that equate to? Honestly.

... as "long hours and $35K" wouldn't begin to scratch or even mar the surface of efforts, time, and personal sacrifices Required along the way.

...the entitlement movement believes they don't have to work for anything.

Not to say there aren't those who fit the above stated broad-brush generalization, but moreover to draw one's attention to the glaring "just don't get it" aspect with regards the end-result implications that such-type proposed legislation could ultimately impact sites and/or venues which Many either Rely on or Frequent on a daily basis.

In other words ... and by your own, actually ... if Any given site, or network of sites, isn't capable of establishing their own self-served "ad network", replete with the associated costs and required technological infrastructure to accomplish the same, then they/it should be subject to failure or further financial encumbrance as the result of some ill-conceived [intentionally/deceptively contrived & presented] legislation which would ultimately have little or No effect whatsoever on the Core "focus" of it's so-called primary agenda - Online Personal Privacy, Identity Theft, E-Fraud, etc. (?)

Funny. How it wasn't that long ago where our own .gov found itself under Heavy scrutiny for doing Just That
... tracking cookies

... BUT ... of course ... they've since "stated" that they no longer do so.


Personally,
I don't see this particular legislation gaining sufficient "legs" nor "traction" to make it through on it's own. Though, that's not to say it won't find itself as a "vote swaying" attachment down the road ... snuck in on the tail-end of a mOar high-profile "tarp" at a later date.

... certainly wouldn't be the first time.

Was this covered at all during your visit to DC or is this actually an opposite direction from what the meetings were about?

Also it would be great to see the actual issues broken down into layman's term, that way everyone who is willing and able can then link every site and forum on the net to 'The thread' which breaks it down in a language we can all understand.

And at the bottom you could have a poll as well as a petition.

Is it possible that this is scare tactic? That in all actuality it would never happen? I mean the Internet is fast becoming the number one source for news, music and entertainment aside from the best and fastest way to research and get answers quickly.

The ad revenues represent clients who would loose their butts if they lost the traffic this potentially represents too. So even the Ad placers could be sent the link and sign as well.

Sadly. Australia is pioneering this technology.

It falls under the guise of child protection.

Times like this I'm not so proud to be an Aussie.

The good news is that the proposal was rejected by all the major telecommunications companies but the foot is in the door.

This must NEVER go through.

ATS, by it's own policy, supports the very monster that now threatens to devour it. It's ironic but that's how I see it. ATS itself is not very free, it imposes limitations in freedom of expression far beyond courtesy (namely zionism and drug experiences). So the fact that it itself is now being pushed out of the loop I see as Karma.

Don't get me wrong, it saddens me. ATS has a lot of valid discussion and has value. But what goes around comes around. It's universal dynamics.

If the system shuts down ATS I, given the behaviour of ATS itself, won't spend much time trying to save it, I will move on and seek my freedom of expression elsewhere, because it has been attacked here on ATS before even ATS itself was attacked.

Best of luck ATS, hope this situation stimulates some self-reflection.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Pathos
... I love how you spun this to say something completely the opposite, so you can gain support to keep your free income rolling in...

I can't tell if you're purposefully refusing to comprehend the issue and related effort involved in running an Internet business, or simply are unable.

However, if you believe this to be "free income" for no effort, I strongly urge you to take credit card in-hand and begin your own web site.

SkepticOverlord,
Hahaha... Wow! If you can't attack me straight on, you try to attack me sideways. What little do you know. I run one massive news website, one small local website, and two movie websites. Lol... We have sales teams, designers, and everything else you need to be a success. Don't tell me that I don't know how things work. I know how both print and web news media works. If you end up going out of business because of this legislation, you only have yourself to blame for not preventing your own demise.

You just admitted what I have been trying to prove. Thanks. You opened this thread as if this legislation was an attack on free-speech, you got people rallied up behind your cause, I called you out on the spin, and then you came out and admitted your crime.

Let me use your own words, "The end does not justify the means."

reply to post by 12m8keall2c
12m8keall2c,
You miss the point. Everyone does it through volunteering. Freewill. Regardless about the overall expenses, the owner should had have other means of income to cover the bills. There is more to the advertising world than third-party ad networks.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by Pathos
I run one massive news website, one small local website, and two movie websites. Lol... We have sales teams, designers, and everything else you need to be a success.

If that is indeed true, then it's no surprise you would support this legislation so as to eliminate the competition for eyeballs that is represented by the "Independent Web" -- the online segment that collectively comprises about 65% to 75% of all web traffic.

The motives and methods behind the opinions represented in your post are now clear, thank you.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord
I love it. Hahaha...

Wow! Talk about desperation. I'm talking about how its wrong to steal from hardworking people, and you are telling me that its justified?

I'm also pointing out how it was wrong for you to proclaim that this was an attack on free-speech, so that you can still rake in free money to stay open. And you called your actions justified?

Nice!

Good luck to you in the future.



[edit on 28-11-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by Pathos
[ I'm talking about how its wrong to steal from hardworking people, and you are telling me that its justified?

I have no idea what you're referring to. What "stealing" are you talking about?

I'm also pointing out how it was wrong for you to proclaim that this was an attack on free-speech,

It's a lobbyist-funded attack on the Independent Web, an effort to pull the only viable source of funding out from under thousands, if not millions, of websites that present a collective threat to corporate media. Within that overarching strategy, widely accessible free expression will become significantly more difficult online.



And since you once told me your employer's website received "20,000 visitors bi-weekly" in a U2U message, I have a difficult time believing it's a "massive" website. We get an average of 130,000 a day.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord
Keep preaching to the sky.

I'm going to let this thread speak for itself.

You are similar to a conman.

(I went back and fixed a slight wording in the previous post. Its much more clear now.)

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
And since you once told me your employer's website received "20,000 visitors bi-weekly" in a U2U message, I have a difficult time believing it's a "massive" website. We get an average of 130,000 a day.

I told you what the local paper had. Do you think I would trust you with bigger exposure? I wanted to praise ATS for its work, but now I see where my original assumption was flawed.

Good luck to you in the future.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by Pathos]

reply to post by Pathos


The true conman is in the white house, surrounded by loyal cronies all perpetrating massive fraud on the American people.

If they have their way they will eliminate the ability of sites like ATS and a vast number of other important websites and resources to take in enough revenue to keep running.

When they are gone along with those ads will you be happy?

When the only sites left are those run by corporate giants will you be okay with that?

If this is your vision of the future, you are not alone, there are some very powerful, extremely wealthy people who are endlessly plotting to make that happen... They are getting very close now.

By all means, help them, and don't get in their way.

Originally posted by Pathos
I'm talking about how its wrong to steal from hardworking people, ...

An ill-conceived accusation...

Originally posted by Pathos
Everyone does it through volunteering. Freewill.

... contradicted only moments later.


Given the above it would seem necessary to retract a previous mention of the "just don't get it" aspect, if only due to the increasingly obvious "axe" being bandied about by the same.

~~carry on.

Originally posted by Pathos
I told you what the local paper had. Do you think I would trust you with bigger exposure? I wanted to praise ATS for its work...

Actually, the context in which you mentioned the "20,000 bi-weekly visitors" was in a threat where you were indicating you wrote a "very bad" review of ATS and passed it along to your editor for review.

You seem to be having some difficulty keeping your facts in order. As such, the credibility of your other statements would be in doubt.

From manipulated and controlled paper and ink to freedom in text as pixels on a screen.

The underestimated threat to the mass news media, they may have waited too long to try to stop this, but they will continue with their efforts to gain the same level of control over digital news and information on the internet they once had with printed news.

News and information will not remain free if they have their way.

Long live the digital revolution.

Support this cause.

reply to post by Walkswithfish


But this site isn't completely free! You can't claim to be part of the solution and hope people will rally around you, yet in the same breath limit the participation of the people on this site! (courtesy excepted of course). And SkepticOverlord knows full well that they won't (or can't) allow full expression on this forum, for whatever reasons most of us are unaware of.

I'm not saying ATS should be pushed off the Web, I'm just pointing out that there are elements of the bigger problem, the idea some people have they can muzzle others, here on ATS too and they need to own up to it.

Originally posted by Mindmelding
reply to post by Walkswithfish

 

But this site isn't completely free! You can't claim to be part of the solution and hope people will rally around you, yet in the same breath limit the participation of the people on this site! (courtesy excepted of course). And SkepticOverlord knows full well that they won't (or can't) allow full expression on this forum, for whatever reasons most of us are unaware of.

I'm not saying ATS should be pushed off the Web, I'm just pointing out that there are elements of the bigger problem, the idea some people have they can muzzle others, here on ATS too and they need to own up to it.

The rules here are as they should be, I have seen nothing that would indicate censorship or that would inhibit freedom of expression.

There are limits which maintain a respectable level of decorum, civility and decency. ATS would be dead anyway without that.

I have gotten hours of entertainment, interaction, information, news, fascinating opinions and personal stories, interesting theories and a lot of material that cannot be found anywhere in the mainstream media.

It hasn't cost me a single dime.

I sincerely hope it stays that way.

Don't change a thing.