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.

 

The ATS Conspiracy: Are controversial threads allowed to remain to drive traffic?

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Subject is pretty self explanatory. It seems to me and a few others (quietly) that ATS, whether it be the mods, upper level staff, or both have been allowing the kind of threads that seem to be based on hunches, theories without much fact, or sometimes outright lies to go on and on. Why would this be? Why, if something is darn near proven to be HIGHLY HIGHLY speculative, does it not go to skunk works or "Highly speculative" sections. Im not calling for outright deletion of these threads. Obviously there will be those of you who disagree that a thread is speculative. But there is also some of you who will believe anything posted on here these days. ( and to be fair some of us who cry hoax at every turn) But why don't they go where ATS classifies where they should belong. If something doesn't have proof, its speculative. Simple.

Its not a secret that when threads get moved to places like skunk works, they usually die off in a matter of a couple days. But when they remain in the bigger more frequented forums on ATS, they can go for pages amongst pages.. Such as this thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

For instance, this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... has been proven to be a hoax. Now Im not going to get into a debate over Obama's birth. But the thread facts have been proven false. Not the concept,( I get some of you will never believe Obama was born in the US) but the specific facts in that thread are a hoax. Yet it remains.

The possible answer? To drive up internet traffic, and thus sell ad revenue perhaps? Controversial topics give us all something to remember to argue about. And where else to fight than on the ATS website. Thus we log on here, driving up internet traffic and in turn ATS can sell ad space at a higher dollar to sellers. And I (business wise) see nothing wrong with that. ATS is a business and they gotta make their bottom line. NO problem whatsoever with that. Heck, I work at corporate for one of the biggest advertisers on this site. I just personally find it a little peculiar that a site that asks us to deny ignorance might be playing us for ignorant fools .

I only bring this up to perhaps start a discussion about this and see if others feel this conspiracy may be true. I know I'll get flamed by die hard ATS supporters. Im an ATS supporter as well, I tell all my friends to sign up here. But that doesn't mean we have to be blind and not ask questions... I just hope this doesn't get moved into a lesser used forum on here to stuff this question away from the majority of the site's users. And Mods feel free to join in. I don't need you guys to defend your actions about specific threads you move. Rather I'd love your opinions as if you weren't mods.. if that makes sense..
edit on Sun Feb 26 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: FROM BBQ

edit on Sun Feb 26 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: removed member name from title




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
I just hope this doesn't get moved into a lesser used forum on here to stuff this question away from the majority of the site's users.




It will get shut down and you be asked to redirect any suggestions/criticisms to ATS via the suggestion form.
They don't want the board clogged up with "Bad press" .


But yes.

Controversy generates revenue.

Tabloids and the MSM know that, so do ATS.

ATS is an entertainment site... nothing more.

It's easier to just get on with it and find the decent stuff buried in the crap, easier that way.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
I understand what you're saying but at the same time I dont really mind if they are exploiting threads for ad revenue, as long as the threads bring reliable information to the table I dont see a problem...
Its better than having an ad-free organization like the bbc that spreads lies and really treats its readers as ignorant sheep.

I think sometimes we see conspiracies in places where there are none but I like your enthusiasm!



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Well Im hoping they see this as more of a conspiracy about ats itself than a rant. Im not complaining per say. I just think theyre up to something more besides denying ignorance. And im not making any suggestions because I dont care if they change their policies or not. I hope they arent hypocritical and take this down because it questions the status quo and authority



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by StrangeWayz
 


That's the point: debunked, but "controversial" threads stay unmodded and "active" for long periods of time.

Other threads, and many seemingly innocent comments, get "modded" within minutes.

Put it like this, ignorant but hot topics are allowed to stay out of the Hoax forum, and the only reason seems to be that they are "popular".

Deny (unpopular) ignorance.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeWayz
I understand what you're saying but at the same time I dont really mind if they are exploiting threads for ad revenue, as long as the threads bring reliable information to the table I dont see a problem...
Its better than having an ad-free organization like the bbc that spreads lies and really treats its readers as ignorant sheep.

I think sometimes we see conspiracies in places where there are none but I like your enthusiasm!


And perhaps youre right. But Im going to ask anyways...

And the problem is, not all the info is reliable, but people will see a tabloid style thread title, a bunch of flags, the OP, a few more with some stars and take it as fact because ATS has been very reliable in the past. But it seems more and more often the OPs are getting less and less reliable. Yet are thrown on the front page.I just think certain unreliable threads are being left in the main forums because TPTB know they will get a reaction and will show up on the front page, inciting even more of a reaction.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Yeah I see your point, but what bothers me more is when decent threads with really interesting theories don't get half the attention they deserve, If I see a hoax thread and its been debunked I wont even comment on it because I'm a bit of a lurker and if its already been said there is no point repeating it. I just find another thread...
I guess this wont be featured on ATS recap, but the Obama thread probably will though!



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Conspiracy = controversy. The two go together. One persons controversy is another persons fact.
There may be an added bonus in regards to 'the traffic' thing you mentioned ...
But honestly, a lot of conspiracy is controversy to begin with. It's the flavor of this site.
(unless a mod is in a PC mood that day or something)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Conspiracy = controversy. The two go together. One persons controversy is another persons fact.
There may be an added bonus in regards to 'the traffic' thing you mentioned ...
But honestly, a lot of conspiracy is controversy to begin with. It's the flavor of this site.
(unless a mod is in a PC mood that day or something)


I get that. But I also feel that to have the Conspiracy theory world taken seriously, we need to vet our theories rigorously. Only when we are taken seriously, will we achieve progress.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
This is a conspiracy website! What do you want? Limit the amount of posts on a thread, limit the amount of speach, ideas, theories, speculation?

Once you put a limit on freedom who decides the limit, is it subject to change.

Of course, I could have just said you gave yourself away with the Obama thing.

Nice try buddy. Youre on my list.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Monkeygod333
This is a conspiracy website! What do you want? Limit the amount of posts on a thread, limit the amount of speach, ideas, theories, speculation?

Once you put a limit on freedom who decides the limit, is it subject to change.

Of course, I could have just said you gave yourself away with the Obama thing.

Nice try buddy. Youre on my list.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Where in the world did I ask for limits? Nice to see you make your mind up based on something that involved Obama though. Unlike you, I wont use one point of view to make a sweeping judgement on you....

Im not asking for limits on thoughts, posts, threads, or anything. Im saying that TPTB are allowing threads that in most cases have no proof behind them, to drive traffic for ad revenue. The implication Im making is not that they should be editing or censoring, but they should be putting the speculative threads where they belong.. The speculative forum But thats not happening because there is a conspiracy of money going on.... If that's not clear enough, I suggest rereading the OP



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by StrangeWayz
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Yeah I see your point, but what bothers me more is when decent threads with really interesting theories don't get half the attention they deserve, If I see a hoax thread and its been debunked I wont even comment on it because I'm a bit of a lurker and if its already been said there is no point repeating it. I just find another thread...
I guess this wont be featured on ATS recap, but the Obama thread probably will though!


Im just wondering if this gets thrown into a useless forum on here with no traffic to stuff this thread away as well. Simply for challenging the status quo and implying a conspiracy on the creators of a conspiracy theory website.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
there is a hunch category

lol



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Monkeygod333
 


The idea is to deny ignorance. Not embrace popular ignorance. For web stats.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Conspiracy = controversy. The two go together. One persons controversy is another persons fact.
There may be an added bonus in regards to 'the traffic' thing you mentioned ...
But honestly, a lot of conspiracy is controversy to begin with. It's the flavor of this site.
(unless a mod is in a PC mood that day or something)


I get that. But I also feel that to have the Conspiracy theory world taken seriously, we need to vet our theories rigorously. Only when we are taken seriously, will we achieve progress.


And who gets to make those vetting decisions? You? What if you disagree with them? Will you post another thread just like this one? I submit that they do vet, you just don't agree with them on all of it.
edit on 26/2/2012 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

edit on 26/2/2012 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
It's easier to just get on with it and find the decent stuff buried in the crap, easier that way.


You don't mean the Dark ATS do you?

Shh I hear there is a lot of aliens there.

And you need Tor to access it, so I'm not touching it with an Ipad let alone my PC.

......

Firstly, OP's first link is not speculative nor deserving of being moved from where it was. In my opinion, it was a well recorded video of something, perhaps mundane, but certainly nothing obviously hoaxed, suggested or an opinion dressed as lettuce.

The second link, well... how many obama threads do you want with the same topic?

I guess you only see the real ATS when you have your thread move, post deleted or get no replies/stars/flags and then you need to make a thread to detail this under the guise of "Is ATS just a shonk!!" listing the things you see getting attention when you did not.

I dunno, I post a rant, or a joke. I'm not here to break the knowledge barrier, I'm still flying at leg speed.




posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by blupblup
 


Well Im hoping they see this as more of a conspiracy about ats itself than a rant. Im not complaining per say. I just think theyre up to something more besides denying ignorance. And im not making any suggestions because I dont care if they change their policies or not. I hope they arent hypocritical and take this down because it questions the status quo and authority


Any well established house needs walls. Or you end up with a tent, and in a tent, any wind can blow it away.

So you need rules, you need guides, you need monsters who can delete the termites and move the snakes, and you need a structure.

May as well just pop off to GLP if restriction is a worry, none there.. Oh unless you tickle wotsisname with a hammer.

BANNAMMERED!! Your IP is bad.. Stop stalking me.. god he's funny that way.. lol



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Monkeygod333
 


The idea is to deny ignorance. Not embrace popular ignorance. For web stats.


God forbid someone pays for all of this.

Including your obvious distrust for them paying for it.. ATS should be free, like beer. Now 50 years ago, it was.. it was called a Special Interest Group, and you could meet in a park.

I guess we could do that now... anyone making guy fawkes masks? How much ar.. Oh no, there we go again... Oops!



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
...are you sure you don't want to put this in Board Business & Questions?


Recent example I saw was when one of the site owners tried to debunk the video of the French prophet from around 1981 that got a good number of pages. Seems counter intuitive according to your theory when at the time there was still discussion on both sides.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join