How to "Deny Ignorance" when it is ATS promoting the ignorance?

reply to post by neformore

I think you are mistaken.

Without meaning to be offensive--well, you would, wouldn't you? You're staff; you couldn't admit I was right without giving the game away.

ATS is a discussion conduit.

No, the internet is that. ATS is a discussion forum whose primary reason for existence is to make money.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. You are providing something the public wants, and you are providing it (as far as they are concerned) free of charge. If you're looking for condemnation from me, you won't get it; I am an ex-advertising and public relations man and a dedicated capitalist.

It is not down to the board staff to prove anything.

Yes, that would be a definite revenue killer. Which is why adjensen's suggestion, though it certainly would help in 'denying ignorance', doesn't stand a chance of ever being implemented.

It is for the members to debate/discuss

Thereby muliplying eyeballs. Tell you what, it's a great business model. Kudos to SkepticOverlord (for I suspect it was he) who first saw the potential in Simon Gray's originally more anorak-oriented creation and running with it.

If Above Networks ever went public, I'd be tempted to invest.

It is "user generated content".

Ah, and that's the beauty of it! And guess what, moderators are content-generators too.

As I said, it's a great business model.

Look, neformore, I'm not exactly giving away state secrets here, am I? Anyone who understands the media business, even slightly, can see at once how ATS works. The vast majority of site users, however, don't understand any kind of business, so these observations will mean nothing to them. A few may decide ATS is an evil conspiracy and leave--but I doubt they will constitute more than a tiny blip in the overall rate of attrition. The bulk of the membership will continue to take the words 'deny ignorance' as gospel and keep on generating that good ol' content for the site owners. The success of ATS will not be compromised by my 'revelations'.

Note that, alhough I have never been under any illusions about the true nature of ATS, I am happy as any other member to generate content for the site. I reckon I'm getting a fantastic deal--excellent entertainment plus an outlet for my own surplus creativity. Creating intellectual property is what I do for a living, so I'm careful about what I post here and what I don't. Anything that seems to me to have real commercial potential will never see the light of day here on ATS. If you want to see my best stuff, you will have to pay for it.

Now and then I see a thread on ATS based on an idea that may have commercial potential--that 'All Roads Lead to Rome' thread I mentioned earlier being a case in point--but most of the time, there is nothing here that would ever trouble A.C. Nielsen, the box-office charts or the bestseller lists. In fact, that's where most of this so-called 'user-generated content' actually comes from: the media, the internet, popular culture in general. The few truly original ideas that show up on ATS are far too crazy to be commercially viable.

So no-one is getting hurt, no-one is getting gypped, the membership is (by and large) happy and Above Networks LLC makes enough to pay the bills and, let us hope, make enough of a profit to allow the site owners to afford an occasional glass of pinot grigio. Who's complaining? Not I.

But anyone sincerely interested in the truth is probably better off with Nature, or The Skeptical Enquirer, or Wikileaks.

Originally posted by Astyanax
As I said, it's a great business model.

For others, too! Check out this thread and my comments on page one. It's another instance of the facts belying the claims made in the linked article, but I'd guess that I'll be ignored yet again

But that's okay.

Originally posted by adjensen
It's another instance of the facts belying the claims made in the linked article, but I'd guess that I'll be ignored yet again

reply to post by adjensen

In all fairness to the site owners, I think they've done a reasonable job of protecting gullible members from scammers via the Terms & Conditions. However, any web site that welcomes discussion of 'free energy', alternative 'therapies', survivalism and the paranormal is creating a de facto market to make snake-oil vendors' mouths water. A few will undoubtedly try to exploit this market; however, the provisions of the T&C, coupled with the intelligence and scepticism of members such as yourself, are probably enough to foil them.

Besides, it's caveat emptor in the end, isn't it?

*

reply to post by zorgon

You seem a little agitated, Zorgon. Afraid they'll accept adjensen's suggestion and clip poor Peggy's wings?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Astyanax
As I said, it's a great business model.

For others, too! Check out this thread and my comments on page one. It's another instance of the facts belying the claims made in the linked article, but I'd guess that I'll be ignored yet again

But that's okay.

Read it, it's good stuff.

These days, however, ATS seems to be invaded by people who can't or won't apply common logic to most anything.