It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 24
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Mindmelding
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)...

... 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.

Apples and oranges differ to the extent where comparison of the two is as irrelevant as the thinly-veiled barbs often used in attempts to combine and/or misconstrue the same.

With regards what could ultimately prove the overall impact of said legislation, it's not about precluding discussion of illicit or illegal activities, Nor is it about keeping topical focuses Net Nanny safe and available to as many folks as possible...

It's mOar about the potential impact that vaguely-worded legislative measures might have upon "voices" on the Whole. Yours. Mine. Joe Blogger. Pete the Political Pundit, etc.

In the grand scheme of things there would seem a Much larger "picture" at risk here, if these type restrictive enforcements are approved, supported or allowed to be enacted, as opposed to that which has been so narrowly and pointedly-"targeted" by those "on a mission" to seemingly draw attentions towards a given tree and away from the forest itself.

Amazing. The lengths to which some will go to "make their point", even though and no matter how ill-conceived, off-target, or misconstrued it may be. Amazing.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

Until ATS does a mea culpa it dosen't deserve direct support. Fighting web censorship is a different issue that can be done by many ways, not just by supporting a site that itself censors...

Does this sound unreasonable to you? You can't fight censorship by supporting a smaller censorship. It's not a compromisable situation, censorship is an absolute, regardless of the scale it is done at. It is always the limitation of another person's freedom, which should never be done, unless that person's freedom is itself limiting the freedom of others.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Mindmelding
It is always the limitation of another person's freedom, which should never be done, unless that person's freedom is itself limiting the freedom of others.

You seem to misunderstand the core concept of free expression.

Our very-limited list of topics we prefer not to support has nothing to do with censoring your ability to have freedom of speech. We just prefer not to abide those (3) topics here... for now.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 12:56 PM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Back in 2002 and 2003, ATS went dark several times... for weeks at a time. The primary reason is that our traffic levels exceeded that of our current hosting agreement, and Simon was unable to afford a higher-tier hosting contract that would allow more bandwidth.

Had we not taken the risk (and personal investment) of improving core site technology and features so as to attract advertising, there would now be no

Back in 2002 and 2003, if you had used that "personal investment" to keep alive something you have a REAL passion for (conspiracies) by investing it in a better "hosting agreement"....that would have meant an advertising FREE site today and the possibility to fight this possible legislature from an independant standpoint safe in the knowledge that we would have still been around to fight even IF it went ahead.

So ironically, your decision back then to employ advertising to pay for "whistles & bells" could ultimately cause the same fate as if you'd done nothing.

You killed ATS.

You built a Cruise Ship as a commercial venture Bill and not an ARK to Deny Ignorance...and we all know how that one (allegedly) turned out.

Good Luck.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:14 PM

Originally posted by nerbot investing it in a better "hosting agreement"....that would have meant an advertising FREE site today...

Your mind is made up based on either misinformation or errant assumptions, and there's clearly nothing I can say to alter your preconceived notions.

So there's no point in trying.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:30 PM
This web site runs a pretty good system for making political progress.

Essentially emails are sent out that allow members to easily send faxes to their congressional representatives to fight against legislation that they oppose. They also encourage people to write their congress reps.

Placing a thread on ATS's home page about protecting the internet, which gives a link where people can easily fax their congressional representative could very well be an effective way to stop this legislation.

You would be surprised how a few thousand faxes can have a big impact on legislation.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by nerbot

I think you have little understanding of how a multi-member public website works. As the membership and content on this site grows(and it does exponentially) one must seek out more hosting space, and a way to pay for it without charging it's members a fee. The internet, unlike many believe, is NOT free. It is a commerce platform and without playing the commerce game one would GO BROKE trying to do what you suggest SkepticOverlord should do.

I recommend an economics class.

[edit on 28-11-2009 by projectvxn]

[edit on 28-11-2009 by projectvxn]

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by projectvxn

There is a way to grow exponentially in content and not be bogged down by service costs. It's called peer to peer.

But this means accepting the idea that people are free to add their own content and filter their own upload. This means abandoning a centralized server model. This means allowing the web to be actually free.

I'm not even talking about file sharing, I mean setting up a peer to peer ISP system, a peer to peer forum system, a peer to peer video service, etc. Every node on the web would be client and server combined.

The NWO is petrified of this model, it, if ever it gets a true hold on the web, would change it more than google has. So far it's only really around for filesharing and a few communication software suites, but I'm waiting for some garage genius to build a peer to peer youtube

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:28 PM
Total crap! Where do I sign?

I figured the current administration would find a way to shut up independent websites.

I wish that signing something would change something, but they have proved that if they want something it doesnt matter what anyone else will think.

If push comes to shove, I would pay a yearly fee to be a member. Dont close ATS dude.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by Mindmelding

I understand what you're saying but let's get back to the issue at hand rather than speculating a new Internet platform. Regardless of this idea we have to understand the position ATS is finding itself in at this point with this format. And deal with the issue within these confines. ATS is not going to change the way the Internet works. But we can maintain the freedom that exists now. And that is the point SO was trying to make. We have to protect what we already have in order to have a basis to innovate in the future.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:20 PM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 08:32 PM
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Where are the petitions...thanks for drawing an adequate one up in advance...p.s., what ever became of simon gray?

posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 10:25 PM
I'm with you.

Retiring soon and will have the time to write letters to the appropriate people. Give guidance and I'll do my research too.

Thank you.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 02:26 AM
i am in , also could some one u2u me methods to circumvent this .

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:14 AM
reply to post by projectvxn

As someone who is aware of several abuses commited by ATS staff as well as a general dishonesty in the moderation of the hotter debates like chemtrails and the downright censorship of others... I still say you guys contributed to your own problems, by being a manifestation of the very problem you're now asking help to solve, albeit at a smaller scale.

This is what I am trying to say to the guys at ATS and the supporters, what you put into the system, the system being reality, is what you get back.

Karma. Deal with it.

However I do hope you guys manage to stay online and, despite some admitted hostility to some of the practices here, for the meanwhile I would rather keep posting. So I'm kinda on the fence with you guys. What happens happens.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 10:03 AM
A petition is a good idea if it can be promoted to reach a lot of people.

With the new net neutrality discussions the internet is being reviewed for some regulations. Acting sooner than later should be done.

I will sign the petition, but if it is to be successful it will have to have broad reaching capability. A great petition that is not 1) Provocative, 2)Eye catching, 3) Lacks easily understandable language will have minimal success at best.

I look forward to U2U messages about the petition creation and location.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by projectvxn
I recommend an economics class.


And I recommend one for you in "the man behind the curtain"

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by Mindmelding

I'm not here to discuss any instance of perceived failure on the part of ATS staff. There's a complaint feature to deal with your issues with ATS. I am also not a member of the ATS staff and cannot answer for anything they may or may not have done. I have, however, run several websites and know what it takes to maintain a free service for people who don't seem to appreciate the subtleties involved.

The platform we run is repeated over and over again on the internet. So established it is that ATS and ANYONE seeking to run a service similar to the ATS model must find a way to pay for it or simply not exist. Karma has little to do with it.

How many people here use a yahoo email address? How many pay for it? NONE. Why? Ad revenue. Yahoo is a publicly traded company however, and this law would give them an unfair advantage over sites like ATS who do not have the kind of legal and economic resources to continue to operate.

Frankly this isn't just about ATS, it is about any small to midsize website trying to carve out it's own niche on the internet and SURVIVE in a level playing field.

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by nerbot

Oh please. It's about maintaining a level playing field.
Read my post above specifically the last paragraph. ATS is what it is today because it operates on a level playing field. It is not ATS' or SO's fault that the powers that be wish to crowd out small business on the internet. Where are you getting this junk?

posted on Nov, 29 2009 @ 05:50 PM


i have great respect for you

however i find this very Hippocratic

you want a free internet, yet you censor extremely important world changing subjects here based on the actions of the immature, while other threads are plagued by the immature

you want a free internet

so do we

we want a internet where we can go and freely discuss anything, especially topics of great importance

would a petition to stop the removal of freedom from the internet be a good thing

damn right it would

but the only way ats could or should be responsible for that petition is if they truly allow a uncensored site to exist on a uncensored internet

you may edit my post, or delete it, but i will mention now what i am speaking about

the medical marijuana movement and knowledge that is being censored and suppressed on ats

that censorship is harming and possibly killing many people around the world due to the information not being able to spread

its one thing to not allow immature discussion of immature topics

its another to blatantly censor mature medical discussion and sharing of important information that is also being censored not only by government but by the medical communities even though very well respected members of both communities have agreed on the benefits and lack of negative side effects of the above mentioned substance

another reason ats does not allow discussion of it is because it is a "illegal mind altering substance"

well we werent even allowed to discuss the new policy by the obama administration stating the federal government will no longer pursue medical users in medically legal states

this policy now puts the substance in question in a grey area between legal and illegal

yet here on ats, we can not even debate this, nor how it affects our government, our economy, and our foreign policy

with all that said, as much respect as i have for ats and the site owners, it will be extremely hypocritical to back a petition for free internet and free speech when this site itself stifles what it wants to petition for

now the only thing i am wondering about, is how long will it take for my post to be deleted or censored on a thread asking for help in stopping the censorship on the internet

with all due respect to ats and the owners


new topics

top topics

<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in