Censorship on ATS?

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by elouina

 

I feel folks here know about all world events before the average joe.

Even better, we make some of them up ourselves..

Absolutely hillarious! Yeah, that, too ... and it's fun sometimes, too. Excellent entertainment, too.

Originally posted by WalterRatlos

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by elouina

 

I feel folks here know about all world events before the average joe.

Even better, we make some of them up ourselves..

Absolutely hillarious!

Yeah, that, too ...

and it's fun sometimes, too.

Excellent entertainment, too.

Yes I noticed that. But it is fun!

reply to post by leaualorin


I would say that if you're getting warned and honestly don't understand why and genuinely want to work towards -not- getting further warnings that you use the complaint function and genuinely ask for assistance on how to post within the terms and conditions and not get warned.

Your profile says you're from Romania so I would assume English is not your native language and might make things a little tougher if you're learning vernacular on other less regulated message boards. I'm sure that because of this someone would be happy to assist as getting perspectives from around the world is an important thing that makes this site great.

I don't mean to make assumptions but I have known many non-native English speakers who after spending a lot of time on the internet subsequently made quite a few social errors in the usage of the language in a college education setting and I am thinking this might be your issue.

reply to post by Jinglelord


Could also U2U the mod who issued the warn, and explain your case. We are human too (well, most of us), and we do occasionally make mistakes or see something that is taken out of context. Can't hurt to ask why a warn was issued. I've rescinded one a couple of times (well, gave points back, and just had to wait for the expiration).

I had an upsetting experience recently. I made a post in a thread which had a lot of posts from other people which were off topic. My post was slightly off topic although in my view was more on topic than some others. Within my post I had denegrated another poster who happened to be a mod. Another poster had already made open complaints about this mod and accused him of having removed his posts and he was asking a very legitimate question of why it should be that mods could start contentious threads and then be in a position to remove any post that they didn't like. The mod in question went to great lengths to make it clear that the rules state that mods cannot be mods in threads which they take part in. Fair enough but then my post was removed by another mod. So to me it was very suspicious and made me think that a mod might be able to get a fellow mod to do his bidding for him.
I thought this was quite funny that I had a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy forum. So I decided to U2U the mod who had removed my post and ask why he had removed mine for being off topic when clearly there were others more off topic but not removed, and whether it was because my post had referred to another mod that was the real reason for the removal.
I got a very unpleasant, rude, and agressive response.
So I sent a complaint using the correct form and as yet at least a week or maybe more later I still have not had a response.
In my view I have been unfairly censored, I have asked the mod about it, been given short shrift and then submitted a complaint to simply be ignored.
I don't like it. It has changed my perception of ATS as being fair. I now don't think it is.

reply to post by bigyin


It wouldn't surprise me that if you break T&C and are directly attacking a mod it would be easy for them to find another mod to come in and regulate and greatly enhances the chance of your post being pulled for the violation. To me this is common sense. You break a rule while you know a mod is watching they will take action. If they are "Off Duty" ie participating in the thread they might not take action unless it is a really bad violation or you directly insult them. Its human nature and not a conspiracy in my eyes.

If the mod was also posting off-topic or violated the T&C I would send a U2U to an Administrator or Super Moderator who you regard as fair and ask them to personally review your complaint as you trust them and to please explain why you were singled out. I wouldn't imagine they have time in every case to do this but it is what I would do.

But before you do I would ask yourself if you were truly censored. Were you banned from sharing an intellectual idea, or were you banned from presenting the idea in an offensive manner that might not have been appropriate to the thread it was in?

Here is the test: Create a thread on the topic you felt you being censored for. Be careful that it is within the T&Cs and in the right forum. Share your ideas, get them out there! Then send the link to anyone from the inappropriate thread who seemed interested in the topic and continue the discussion where it is on topic. If you were truly being censored I'd imagine that thread would get closed

ATS censorship is subjective. If the political agenda of ATS is promoted by censoring the 'offending material', they will go through with it. It has nothing to do with T&C or any other BS they attempt to upload onto your plate.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


By that logic there is a clear agenda which should become clear after watching what gets removed and can be tested by repeatedly posting about material opposed to the agenda that follows the T&C to the letter.

Seriously I want evidence, an agenda, details! If there is an intellectual topic that will be censored tell me what it is, I'll create a thread on it or find a good thread in the archives.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c

"I went outside to smoke a fag", as you put it, might come across as an 'alert' no matter how you interpret it.

Have you seen some of the threads regarding cigarette use? No one wants to let tobacco off the cancer hook. IMO cigarettes are your best defense against airborne fallout from bomb testing. Tobacco took the fall for a lot of radioactivity, since the early 60's. It is a scapegoat. Nonetheless there are those willing to alert the authorities about illicit cigarette use because this step puts the informants in the front row for the 911 police state. The whole thing is quite involved with wireless technology, you'll see.

reply to post by Jinglelord


Well I won't be doing anything further about it. I like ATS too much to encur a ban or the wrath of any moderator. I was just disappointed to not only be censored unfairly, I wouldn't mind if all the other off topic replies had been deleted as well, but having requested an explanation I got nothing but abuse from the mod who banned me.

It just leaves you stunned, which I suppose is how it feels when you think you are an active and fair member of the forum and suddenly you get red carded for no reason. It demoralises you.

I'll get over it, already have, but I now know that some mods are corrupted. It's bound to be I guess on something as big as this.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Without saying what the website is that was blocked is it a direct competitor to ATS? Is the information on that site material which can be shown in another way? I'm willing to bet there is a good reason the site is blocked beyond trying to censor an idea to push an agenda.

Describe the contents of the website without mentioning the name or violating T&Cs and I might agree it was intellectual censorship.

reply to post by backinblack

then a Mod is compelled to act..

Um, just try to 'compel' an ATS Mod...Just once...I dare ya...

Even though I don't agree with Mods on a regular basis, I still respect their position, which often falls between a rock and a hard place. But fair? I've only come into contact with one who is not. That's pretty great odds.

Nice thread - too bad we can't star and flag in here.

peace

reply to post by Jinglelord


Explanation: It is a competitor of ATS and I cannot discuss the issues even though I know the why. I think the reason is very silly but this isn't about them. You asked a question about ATS and I showed it was terribly true to a point. As I am a member of that website I know it doesn't have anything that infowars, gpl or ATS doesn't allow EXCEPT for less restrictive explicit language content issues... so basically a bit of explicit rough language and that is it. Click on the 2nd link I supplied and see for yourself but ONLY to prove to yourself that what I am saying is true and coherent and THE BASE FACTS!

Personal Disclosure: OL only recomends they check out the link to prove a point validly. I'm in no way recruiting for them at all.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Okay it is NOT intellectual censorship to restrict linking to a competitor. I would say if anything your presentation is being censored which I have already established is acceptable (to me at least).

A: It would be stupid to allow a competitor's content on your website.

B: If you are using another board's content to support an intellectual point you get a fail. Go for source information presented on said board and link to that.

C: Everything else is hearsay and you can just as easily say "People on another board said X" without linking to or naming the board. Another person's musings on another board constitute no more proof than your musings on this board.

D: If there is an absolute necessary reason to break the T&Cs that would make a huge difference in getting an idea or world event out there (which I can't imagine but hey anything is possible) contact the site management and ask for an exception for your specific reasons and if they will not give an exception ask for a recommended alternative to getting the information out. You might just find you're not being intellectually censored.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


there are certain sites, and individuals who's names we don't allow, for a variety of reasons. In some cases, the owners of the sites abused our system here to spam their site, in other cases, there have been threats of legal action over things said here, by our members and, in an effort to protect ourselves, and our members, we make it hard for them to come right out and say it.

Lastly, we don't allow free advertising on the site. This site is very large, very high trafficked and, as such, is very expensive to run. We manage to provide this site, to our members and guests, at the very low cost of FREE, by charging for advertising space. When folks come here and try and get around that system, by posting their link in every post, they are, basically, stealing from us and, more important, they are sending a message to our advertisers that, if they want, they too can get the ads for free. This could result in our losing advertisers which, in turn, could result in the site no longer being free.

So, yes, there are times when we block sites, or names of people but, as stated above, there's always a reason.


Funny thing is, we are very open about our willingness to allow links to sites in signatures and posts, provided the person wanting to post said links, gets permission from the owners first. I'd say we get one request for every ten spammer and we almost never say no to the request.


The folks who find their site blocked bring it upon themselves.