So Is WikiLeaks Domain Banned in America?

crazyewok
I think its ironic a site set up to "deny Ignorance" bans a sight with sources that expose all the evil in the world!

For those who pay attention, have a level of reasonable capability with logic, and have decent recall and comprehension; the issue has been addressed in the past a few times.

To avoid a single-case exclusion that is a technical violation of our Terms & Conditions -- no links to material that has be illegally obtained, we also block pastebin -- we blocked WikiLeaks links back when many members were linking directly to clearly stolen materials... we had no choice. The advice at the time, and for now while we continue to review the situation, was to link to news sites or blogs that were analyzing and linking to the documents.

This is a international site right? So why care if its banned in the USA?

See above.

This site and its owners really need to have a good disscussion on were it prioritys really are

We did.

Lock this thread and you may as well get NSA sponsership for the place.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I'm not clicking that.
No way.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
no links to material that has be illegally obtained,

But most of the intresting and scret things will be illegally obtained.

The sites called above top secret but any top secret information that is on here will be illegaly obtained if they are backed up with evidence.

I am not a hater. I just dont want to see a good site ruined by censorhsip and rules made out of fear of USA tyranny.

crazyewok
I am not a hater. I just dont want to see a good site ruined by censorhsip and rules made out of fear of USA tyranny.

edit on 25-6-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

It has nothing to do with "USA tyranny" and everything to do with the Terms of Service of our hosting provider, who does not allow links to content obtained illegally. We're considering alternatives (but not alternative providers, we're in too deep).


More specifically -- we're likely going to seek legal advice. There are at least four points in the "Master Agreement" with our hosting provider that would most certainly be violated by direct links to material on WikiLeaks, and is the reason for the initial link block.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Terms of Service of our hosting provider, who does not allow links to content obtained illegally. We're considering alternatives (but not alternative providers, we're in too deep).

Ok that fair enough. I have only been around a few months so have not seen past disscusions.

I'm not clicking that.
No way.

It's just a link to an ATS thread, where the admins answer the claims of the ATS conspiracy crowd... It's funny how many demand such answers, and yet here they are (and sit, unread)... Oh well...

Whew! At least I'm not in trouble for discussing that we are discussing it....(of course, I haven't checked my U2Us though, so could be a nastygram).

Originally posted by Gazrok
Because of illegal acts they commit, we didn't allow linking to it from ATS. But, we're currently checking it through with legal, etc. and I have a feeling we'll allow linking to it soon. Don't quote me on it, but it certainly seems to be blowing that way....So, we'll see.

**there's a lot of things censored on ATS, but it does reside in "the land of the free...."

Not an issue of censorship...but one of legality. We also have terms and conditions that members agreed to, before posting. We are different from some sites that allow blatant swearing, hate, personal attacks, etc., but we try to differentiate ourselves in this way. While some see this as censorship, others see it for what it is, a desire to create a civil forum for discussion.

edit on 25-6-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

A good reponse but then I can't help but wonder - if a million other websites are linking to the content, *even* in America, then why can't ATS?

Is ATS openly showing they are pro- government agenda and anti-wikileaks?

If you did allow links to the info, what's the worst that could happen to ATS and a million other sites?

ATS should be taking a stand with their slogan, and yet at any touchey subject opportunity they seem to do the opposite.

@ Skeptic - in regards to terms of service, have you considered that at least 20% of the info held within the content of ATS was obtained illegally in one way or another.

Even simple pdf copyright infringment.

What about all the other whistleblowers info?

I understand it's a hard one to balance - but it seems like every time you try balancing regulation - it happens to slant in favor of the establishment - when you could be utilising so much more by not being so damn PC.

Originally posted by crazyewok
I think its ironic a site set up to "deny Ignorance" bans a sight with sources that expose all the evil in the world!

This is a international site right? So why care if its banned in the USA? They are wrong for banning it so screw them. Would you remove links that are banned in China? I bet not!


Plus you ask people when posting to give evidence and proof of there sources right? Well any leak or source will be classed as Illegal by someone! In theroy you should be banning all information on Snowden right? Thats illegal.


This site and its owners really need to have a good disscussion on were it prioritys really are as at the moment they seem to be with pleaseing our corrupt overlords not denying ignorance.


I bet this thread gets locked too. Beacuse how dare we deny possible ignorance of the site

Lock this thread and you may as well get NSA sponsership for the place.

edit on 25-6-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

I agree with your assessment 100% but I do understand why ATS has taken the action they did. Since Wikileaks spreads information that was obtained illegally and much of that information is "national security sensitive" there is a good chance that the site owner of ATS could be charged with distributing top secret or security sensitive information.

I don't think it is an attempt by ATS to quell the distribution of information but rather a case of CYA on their part. I have read a lot of the WikiLeaks info and it is readily available to anyone online. However it would be a shame for a great site like ATS to get shut down due to a bunch of trumped up charges, even though we know the government would never do anything like that.

Originally posted by Gazrok

I'm not clicking that.
No way.

It's just a link to an ATS thread, where the admins answer the claims of the ATS conspiracy crowd... It's funny how many demand such answers, and yet here they are (and sit, unread)... Oh well...

Whew! At least I'm not in trouble for discussing that we are discussing it....(of course, I haven't checked my U2Us though, so could be a nastygram).

edit on 25-6-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

I figured it was a trick to suck all my data up in the NSA vacuum cleaner.
Oh, that's right, they already have that.

reply to post by ObservingYou

A good reponse but then I can't help but wonder - if a million other websites are linking to the content, *even* in America, then why can't ATS?

Has to do with the contract one signs with the service provider. No doubt, these other websites are in violation of their contracts. Their provider could, if they wished, pull the plug based on it. Doesn't mean they would, but the possibility is there. It is a standard part of most such agreements.

While we doubt ours would do so, the very possibility of it, is enough to warrant serious discussion and debate. If you had a business, and doing ONE thing could open the door to someone coming in and turning off the key to that business....would you do that ONE thing? Would you take that risk? Just to allow people to link to something vs. just mention it?

@ Skeptic - in regards to terms of service, have you considered that at least 20% of the info held within the content of ATS was obtained illegally in one way or another.

It is the direct linking, that violates the terms. They use legalize of course, to describe it, but essentially, the direct linking of a site that is conducting illegal activity is where the violation occurs.

ObservingYou
A good reponse but then I can't help but wonder - if a million other websites are linking to the content, *even* in America, then why can't ATS?

Each domain has different protections, restrictions, and so on. ATS lives in a non-press non-blog gray area that is typically left with a short-list of protections.




OUR OFFICIAL POSITION

The ATS staff has completed a long discussion regarding removing the block on links to WikiLeaks, which included reaching out to our hosting provider. The primary reason we disallowed links previously (and often the driving-force for many of our policies) is that such links to the types of materials hosted on WikiLeaks would be a technical violation of our Acceptable Use Policy with our provider. And to further make this issue more sensitive with our provider, they took heat a few years back for hosting WikiLeaks mirrors.

Lots of "conspiracy sites" can overcome such restrictions because their providers are either less stringent, or have no such restrictions at all. Given the scale of our traffic, and the need for high-end hardware and network, pretty much every hosting provider capable of providing what we need will have similar (or identical) restrictions. It's the unfortunate conundrum in which ATS lives... moving to another host isn't an option.

Our policy remains the same, unfortunately. But back when this first became an issue, we urged members to find other sites, sources, blogs, etc. that covered the WikiLeaks material they wanted to include in their post -- then link to those sites, with an explanation of where to find the links once there. That remains the best course of action for now

Is ATS openly showing they are pro- government agenda and anti-wikileaks?

Absurd.

If you did allow links to the info, what's the worst that could happen to ATS and a million other sites?

We would be taken offline until all links are removed. Given our infrastructure design, that would be very difficult while offline.

@ Skeptic - in regards to terms of service, have you considered that at least 20% of the info held within the content of ATS was obtained illegally in one way or another.

I can't see how it would be above 0.5%

i bet the nsa etc etc are sitting around tables right now saying we cant use that it was obtained illegally .

if only

Originally posted by Gazrok
Because of illegal acts they commit, we didn't allow linking to it from ATS. But, we're currently checking it through with legal, etc. and I have a feeling we'll allow linking to it soon. Don't quote me on it, but it certainly seems to be blowing that way....So, we'll see.

[

So I take it you'll be blocking most government sites as well, on account of the fact they commit more illegal acts in a day then wikileaks does in a lifetime ...

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Long and the short of it: ATS disallows linking to that site, or others that are direct outlets. However, ATS condones finding other media outlets reporting on the direct outlets' contents.

Sounds like this is a complete non issue. Unless someone here fancies themselves a journalist, in which case they should sell their story to Der Spiegel instead of throwing it up here for free.

Thank you, SO.

Thank you for the update SO

Definitely thanks for the update. I posted the thread about this in the board issues subforum the other day and never got a chance to reply because Springer closed it. I wasn't trying to stir the pot, was just curious because I had never noticed wikileaks being blocked before. Sucks though that you guys had to block the site, because they seem to generate hot topics from time to time. Anyways, thanks again!

Can someone point me to where I might find the name of the ATS hosts? Just curious.

I guess I just don't understand the difference between Wikileaks and The Guardian or Washington Post. Both have been given illegally obtained information, both have published it on their websites yet one is banned and one is not. Fine, whatever, just saying it appears to be a double standard.

reply to post by Gazrok


speedy response to a staff question, very polite, well educated, very professional.

you just made my list buddy....

moving on...

Archie
I guess I just don't understand the difference between Wikileaks and The Guardian or Washington Post.

WikiLeaks ---> clearing house for all kinds of documents obtained through alternative channels, some illegal. No protections, relies on custom hosting strategies as it has no press protections but deep pockets thanks to donations.

The Guardian ---> media organization with a journalistic history and the protections typically given to the press and deep pockets thanks to multiple revenue streams.

Washington Post ---> see The Guardian.

AboveTopSecret.com ---> user generated clearing house of opinions, ideas, and sometimes important information. Has no typical press protection, and definitely not deep pockets.