**ALL MEMBERS*** Before Its News as a source

reply to post by masqua


My concern is that maybe one of those very out there conspiracies is covered by two or three sources which just happens to include BIN, the story gets scrubbed from ATS.

I have seen members calling for Natural News, Snopes, Infowars, Global Research to be banned. Kinda worrisome.

In my opinion CNN is more dangerous as a propaganda machine than BIN with all of their hilarity.

The comedy of the situation is that I've seen similar comments/stories on BIN about ATS. The same goes for several of the other alternative news sources versus their perceived competition. Everyone wants their site to be the source for alternative news, and it all just goes back to that ad revenue.

Everything has to be taken with a large heaping of salt.

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
How about provide some examples of PressTV's false stories,

www.presstv.com...

Ok ok.. people that are adamant about defending BIN.

1)Do the following.. find a article on BIN, see if the article has a source/reference.

2)Go to that reference and post that article.

3) ???

4) = Profit!


If BIN article doesn't have a source, don't bother.

reply to post by Fromabove

And as I actually said prior in my actual post, I believe BIN should be allowed to be quoted as a source and that the members should have the ability to decide as to it's validity. And as I also said prior, that the members are intelligent enough to make those decisions themselves. Now, if that was offensive, so be it.

The fact that so many members don't bother to check validity of stories is the very reason why BIN is banned here, same as Sorcha Faal and others. If people would do it before posting, then perhaps there would be less rubbish getting through and these sites wouldn't end up being taboo.

Wow, did this thread expand, or what??

As I said before, I really dislike seeing things banned or placed in the HOAX forum because I really don't think any of us are smart enough to call anything a hoax beyond a shadow of a doubt. Most of the time, we actually DEPEND on sources and links we don't trust anyway. In the case of BIN... suppose it happened like this...

Story headliner:
North Dogmuffin Attacks Lower Southeast Slobovia!

Okay, if the story comes from BIN, the tendency is to dismiss it right off the bat. However, if the source-link is to Fox News or CNN, etc., we tend to offer up one degree or another of immediate acceptance at the very same time we would crucify the entire Mainscream Media as being untrustworthy.

Yeah, just like that.

On the flip... what if a person has a scoop on a story that the mainscreamers won't publish? Where does one go to get the word out?
BIN? ATS? Well, yes... so now, in a swamp of irony, we're all in the same box, so to speak.

Under these conditions... the banning of BIN as a source here doesn't have much throw weight. It's when you step back and take in the bigger picture that there's the rippled reflections, a gasp, a few lol's and an itchy spot on the end of your nose.

Originally posted by AmerigoVespucci
BEFOREITSNEWS.COM is far and away better than ATS and is a hands down winner in ALL categories.

Well... that should make your next move an easy one.

AmerigoVespucci
I just came from BEFOREITSNEWS.COM. I made a random check of thirty links on their front page. There was not a single problem with any of them.

You didn't look very close, I found a problem with the very first link.

The story is a direct plagiarize of this: publicintelligence.net... without attribution. BFN even does the epitome of slimy web policies by hot-linking the photos off the PI servers -- essentially also stealing their bandwidth.

Oh... but... the small 'read more' link at the bottom "sort of" takes you to the PI story. More badness there I'm afraid. It's a redirect that prevents any "search juice" being handed back to the PI website.

They also appear to have an immediate one-time refresh of the page on every page load to juice page-view numbers. At least, that's what it did in Mac/Safari for me.

They don't play nice with the rest of the Internet.


Edit to add...


You said...

and I would especially like to point out that the site does not BADGER its viewers with constant ads and extremely obnoxious rollovers that are found here on ATS.

I counted 21 ads on their article pages, including one skyscraper in the margin that poorly follows the scroll and slows down the browser because of a non-standard method (not using accepted web standards to accomplish the effect). Thats significantly more ads than we show on thread pages.


Also, they automatically communicate with Facebook on every page load. In the (generated) source of the page, there are over 100 lines of JavaScript connecting with Facebook.

Originally posted by AmerigoVespucci

BEFOREITSNEWS.COM is far and away better than ATS and is a hands down winner in ALL categories.

Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.

reply to post by masqua


Now having past admin experience with 25k membership I understand TOS but your post is just trying to sugar coat the fact you just said ATS has the right to control what gets posted on their site, their opinion is #1. Just my opinion but I would rather you just come out and say that. I even agree with it.

reply to post by semperfortis


This is my example, fine you don't like my opinion that is ok. Don't BS me with it is a hoax because SNOPES says so. Just tell me my opinion is not welcome being posted on here.

(and hey, I wasn't the only one to fall for the error in the year

rt.com...)

MidnightTide
(and hey, I wasn't the only one to fall for the error in the yea
rt.com...)

edit on 8-7-2013 by MidnightTide because: (no reason given)

Maybe you were.

Do you realize that Russia Today (RT.com) is a state-run news media with a mandate to make Russia look good, and the US look bad?

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


I am not trying to step on any toes, but if you want specific news sites to get posted then specify those sites. I know everything out there today has a specific agenda. There is bias in everything......people just happen to pick those who support their opinion in the matter.

I understand why you don't want beforeitsnews posted - they allow too much Sorcha Fail.

reply to post by Springer


So then the story on beforeitsnews about ATS banning beforeitsnews as a source is actually a hoax. Correct? And the thread that I'm posting to right now doesn't actually exist. Very interesting...

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are


It's a conundrum, isn't it?



Oh, well... that's the inter web for you. Full of twists and turns.

Originally post by Wookiep

 

Can we do CNN, Fox and MSNBC next too? They never seem to report anything right.

BIN is pretty lame tho haha.

Originally posted by Helious
But Springer............... How do we know the info is a Hoax if it's reported BEFORE it's news?

That's exactly what I was thinking... :x

reply to post by this_is_who_we_are


You're trying to be obtuse now, no comment to that inanity. Go to BIN, bask in their glorious reality and enjoy my friend, no harm no foul.

Springer...

reply to post by Witness2008


It seems like some people are missing the point that it is only if BIN is the only source cited, that the thread will go to the Hoax bin. So BIN can be a secondary source. This certainly isn't banning BIN. Not to mention the fact that if there is some hot, new news story that one wants to post a thread on, it seems like a good idea to have at least two sources. Of course, if you're just looking for hyper sensational stories no one else has yet made a thread on, this little rule will rain on your parade. Oh well.

It's not that hard to multi-source any real piece of news or info. If you see it on BIN look around for something to corroborate the story. Good move on the admins part in my opinion.

Good move. That website has been proven time and time again to be unreliable concerning the truth. That is the problem, too many idiots polluting the truth with lies and disinformation. Oh yeah, a lot of that going on in cyberspace these days. ~$heopleNation