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.
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.
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.[20] 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,[21] such as author and commentator Laura Knight Jadczyk[22] who has openly criticized Above Top Secret after she published an article on her alternative news website Signs of the Times.[23] This led to a dispute between her and the owners of ATS who claimed that the article had breached ATS’s “creative commons deed”.[24]
Originally posted by Todzer
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
So because people are registered here before 2012 it gives them the right to act like idiots? It is like me saying to you that anyone that has ever died in your family is alive and well and living in a government facility, don't you dare question how I know this information. That is very arrogant to think that because you are here longer you think your opinion is somehow more important than someone who registered this year. Thank god we have older members like you to bring a bit of classedit on 2/1/13 by Todzer because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Todzer
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
Once again your post reeks of ego. You don't care what anyone thinks if they registered in 2012 because why? Is it because they don't agree with such an upstanding member like yourself? A member that just disregards a persons word because they don't meet your deadline for membership registration, why is your word more valid than mine or the other posters? Please answer that.
Originally posted by Sek82
I don't know, maybe sconner is onto something.
Maybe asking simple questions about an incident makes us all those negative bad words, super bad people essentially, and we should just wait for the MSM to tell us what to think happened at Sandy Hook next...
Originally posted by Todzer
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
Because he agrees with you, you first post was an insult to all new members stating that we should keep quite if we don't agree with the oldet members, it got removed, if your post rang true it would still be there but it isn't. So to you a new member should be a good little boy/girl and not disagree with anything that older members have to say? It doesn't matter if you joined yesterday or here from the start, what gives you the right to decide which members have a right to talk? You talk about censorship and yet you are telling other memberd their word isn't good enough, do you see the problem?
Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
Censorship in ats is getting incredible... an actually the last one with the ritual, true or not and as much fat fetched or crazy it was, you got to give the credit to the maker of the video, cause right or wrong thats a lot of work and a huge research job and at least that I think the credit should be given.
Coming here, 404ing threads just because it doesnt fit this or that is exactly the opposite of what ATS should really be. We should have anything here than doesnt fit in the normal, grand scheme of things with some food for thought, even if almost crazy, to open our minds to all perspectives.
This new censorship model ATS is adopting is much like a politician. They start out great... they begin to be famous, then they start gaining important spots, visibility, the change for their highest possible place is in sight, the money starts pouring in, the guy gets elected and........ turns into a guy, just like the others, because the money and the contracts and his very survival depends on it. ATS sold his original soul by the looks of it.
Censoring a video? As member since 2005, that makes me one of the oldest people in here - you know... the others of my time are all gone - jee wonder - but seriously ATS, what went wrong?
I used to like this forum a lot... right now is a pale smoky image of what it used to be... what happened? Does the money do not allow to certain things to be said anymore? Have you sold your soul? Does this "as a business" have to abide by the rules of "someone", because if it is, just say so... and most of the people will be gone because thats not the reason they come... or THINK they come to ATS.
Whats the problem with the Sandy hook - blood ritual video? Can someone answer me... not "elevatedone", someone really with an opinion and with a pertinent and actually important and influential thing to say. Mark? Johnny? SO?
Originally posted by Romanian
Actually this is the reason why my visits to this websites are actually being reduced. Who decide what speculation is unaceppable? I used to have an older account in 2007, closed it for the same reason.so my belief: a redirect to a similar thread would at least provide a reason to why threads were removed, as long as the info is already covered..