My thoughts exactly.
Just reading about ats criticism on wiki, interesting to say the least.
Some members of ATS have strongly criticized the site for their personal perception of overtly censoring content though a large number of moderation staff who actively police to uphold its terms and conditions. Users point out that although this may be necessary for the smooth running of the site, censorship can be perceived as being ironic for a site that is user generated. Also, the notion of censorship is a prominent feature in conspiracy literature and this adds to the problems of ATS censorship.
It goes on,
Other users have pointed out that a tradition of always siding with the conspiracy theory can lead to misinformation being posted on the site. The practice of deleting any post that is inadvertently advertising any of ATS’s rival and smaller conspiracy sites is treated with suspicion. Critics would point out that this is ATS taking advantage of its internet monopoly on internet conspiracy literature for corporate gain and reduces the ability to cooperate with other sites to build on knowledge. One claim made by ATS is that news is reported before it is reported in the mainstream media. This occurs rarely, however, as nearly all "alternative news" on ATS comes from mainstream media sources. Some have even gone so far as to accuse ATS of being controlled opposition, reminiscent of the former COINTELPRO operation of the United States. This is a recurrent theme in many ATS posts and one which the owners of the site deny, such as author and commentator Laura Knight Jadczyk who has openly criticized Above Top Secret after she published an article on her alternative news website Signs of the Times. This led to a dispute between her and the owners of ATS who claimed that the article had breached ATS’s “creative commons deed”.