Sounds about right to me.
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.[15] 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.
Members have also been critical of Above Top Secret moderators for not following the terms and conditions while actively making others do so. Their Terms and conditions and rules posting rules made by the owners state that members cannot use the site for recruitment to any causes whatsoever.[16][17] Moderators have broken this rule [18] while censoring members for doing the same
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.
EDIT: As of latest any thread regarding the Sandy Hook shooting is being censored and automatically deleted without any prior warning or justification.
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by solve
How do you mean, lots of loopholes. I thought Wikipedia had to present factual information and not opinions and that if a fact was incorrect, which in many of these cases I believe they are, then it could be contested and thus removed from the article?