Really?! Is this what has become of ATS?

originally posted by: eriktheawful
Yes, they DO get to decide. It's THEIR place. Not yours. Not other members.

You may not agree with what it is they decide to do, but they IN FACT DO GET TO DECIDE THINGS LIKE THIS.

You miss a certain point. The 3 Amigos are not just conducting ATS out of the goodness of their hearts...though bless'em for the enterprise they've created. This is a product, and should the membership decide to walk, they walk and there are financial considerations. It is worth their while for us to take pride in our contributions, and what we take away. I used to be a huge fan of Rense, until it fell to the crazies, and the admin wouldn't talk to you. I'm gone from there...no more clicks for you, Jeff!

I understand their motives...but I'm glad it irked the membership, and I'm glad the Amigos listened.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Chalk one loss for truth, and score one point for ignorance.

The truth is never pretty, and never really what we want to hear (or see), but its important in this world. If everything we did, and thought, and said, was based in truth - we would be a much better world.

If we cannot face our own truth, and the truth of others... what right do we have saying we deny ignorance?


I think none, none at all. Not if we cannot even face the truth.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Sometimes trolling is in the eye of the beholder

I was very happy when you put out the unwelcome mat for the Nazis/Supremacists a while back - so, we all have our pet issues

I also share your hatred for all things Putinesque - but I think these days, money is the new Kremlin

Nothing new here really, but:
GOP’s shady “news” websites: Republicans get into the propaganda game

And thus was born electionupdate2014.com, the NRCC’s fake-news propaganda website that makes every effort to deceive people into thinking they’re reading the news, when they’re actually getting a full dose of Republican messaging

Straight to you from Salon - leftist propaganda - but the propaganda nearest and dearest to my heart. I call it the Anti-Fox - but I have to remind myself from time to time that a steady diet of confirmation bias is not healthy

People have to make up their own minds - and fighting with KGB flavored trolls might make for some very interesting threads. If America is gonna fall - it won't be because Putin's minions are hanging out at ATS

originally posted by: loam

Out of curiosity, I wonder how people would react to a tag that instead simply read: "Caution: state-controlled media source."

Such a statement informs and encourages contemplation of the intentions of the source. It's factual and doesn't do any thinking or concluding for the reader. I'm sure that still wouldn't make everyone happy, but perhaps it would be a slight improvement over the original approach and help address the original problem SO was seeking to resolve.

But then we'd need tags for Fox saying "Frothing at the mouth Right-Wing nutters" or for all of the other sources and have a little tag? Where does it stop?
It's a slippery slope.

How about no tags and people just engage their brain?

Or I don't know, how about people counter whatever claim or story is being posted and with facts and a reasoned argument - Ya know... like we've always done?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I genuinely mean this, thank you. from the bottom of my heart.

Most people realize that RT is propaganda, I doubt there was ever a discussion over this. And if people truly believe there is still some form of unbiased/ agenda-less agency I feel bad for them.

Truly, thank you.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Chalk one loss for truth, and score one point for ignorance.

The truth is never pretty, and never really what we want to hear (or see), but its important in this world. If everything we did, and thought, and said, was based in truth - we would be a much better world.

If we cannot face our own truth, and the truth of others... what right do we have saying we deny ignorance?

I think none, none at all. Not if we cannot even face the truth.

If you're going to play on the Interwebz, you're going to have to program your own Bravo Sierra detector. The best lesson learned is to check the source before you bet the farm. Having it spoonfed one site at a time does not help...rather, it tends to legitimise those not cited.

Most of us can do without the training wheels by now.

originally posted by: MessageforAll
Most people realize that RT is propaganda

That's not the case. Spend some time with the Facebook comments on this subject on our FB page. While a great many ATS members were generally not fooled, very few outside our circles are aware.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

well said.

I had left the site for a while and only returned recently, was questioning my return halfway through this thread, but I am glad to see that ATS still listens to it's members.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Well you are talking about facebook, lets call a cat a cat. I know as Johny Canuck said, your running an enterprise, and clearly it works.

But expecting the same amount of intelligence ( I know how awful that sounds ) on a FB page is well... nearly impossible. I don't go to the FB so I wouldn't know.

But from what I read in the thread of Liberal1984 only a few members where blinded by RT. Some members still think of RT is " alternative "news and there lies the first deception.

What's killing me is the irony: "Truth Seekers" demanding their entirely manufactured news source.

This is bad, and all I can really think to say is that it #s on years of work by others in the field of IDing just the sort of bull# that RT represents.

I didn't think it could get this bad.

It's like it outsources American opinion in the worst way possible.

Yeah, fascinating; "best of times, worst of times", I guess.

a reply to: blupblup

I don't really disagree.

I am one who always takes ANY source with a grain of salt. But it takes a hell of a lot of work sometimes to see these things for what they are. It's why I really love the true debunkers on this site.

I can remember a time when Sorcha Faal was a name unknown to me. And in truth, I don't think it ever occurred to me RT was state owned or controlled by the Russian government. I just assumed it was a private entity- partly because I already treat everything I read with great suspicion and never took the time to look it up. I assume bias in everything I see these days.

But I also really sympathize with the challenge of trying to dissuade organized efforts to abuse this site.

Tough spot all the way around.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
Fine. There's more important things for all of us to be focusing on than this. The changes have been removed.

There was very good reason for this, essentially for the same reasons we've had to restrict using before itsnews as a source. But fine, embrace you state mandated deceptions and the troll army that comes with.

The changes have been removed.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Already explained this to another member earlier:

The thread creator several times throughout this thread has made the following statments:

"You are not allowed to decide", "You can not change it", etc, etc, etc.

THAT is the point I was addressing. Not whether or not SO's decisions make good business sense or not.

Something that was false, not true, wrong, completely wrong, was being stated over and over and over, and was not being corrected.

Which was: Yes....SO can change things on ATS with out consulting members on here at all. He does not have to poll members. He does not have to listen to members. He does not have to ask their permission. Yes he can decide something will not be allowed here on ATS, and yes he can decide that certain web sites may no longer be linked here or not.........and he can make those decisions without asking anyone's permission because:

He is the site owner.

THAT was the point. Not whether or not is was a good or bad decision. Not whether or not it pleases or upsets members.

However, the OP kept saying that he was not allowed to do this (when in fact he can).

The point was never about if it was a good or bad decision. Just simply the fact that he can make those decisions.

Well, when I see an OP that uses RT as a source, the first thing I will post is the facts about what RT really is. That's my right as a poster, so get used to it.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Well, when I see an OP that uses RT as a source, the first thing I will post is the facts about what RT really is. That's my right as a poster, so get used to it.

At least try and read the post first. sheesh.

a reply to: eriktheawful

If you think that was the essence of my post your mistaken. I am a member here, I can ask I can shout I can cry, I can't demand.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

We are not the only ones that read ATS... this is a widely read site with many people who come and read the site who are NOT hardened conspiracy theorists and who never join nor make even one post here.

So I say again, we are doing nothing right this second in the interest of truth. We are burying our heads in the proverbial sand and hiding from the truth, because ATSers don't want to see it.

For that, I AM very sad.

a reply to: OpinionatedB

What has that got to do with anything? You don't need to be a conspiracy nut to be acritical thinker.

a reply to: MessageforAll

many people don't think critically. It is no longer taught in schools, it is not taught in most homes. Thinking critically is actually not a widely held skill.

originally posted by: Lady_Tuatha

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Well, when I see an OP that uses RT as a source, the first thing I will post is the facts about what RT really is. That's my right as a poster, so get used to it.

At least try and read the post first. sheesh.

Well, duh - of course I'm going to read the post. Even if I agree with the post, I will disclaim the use of RT as a source.