Welp...ATS bit the dust

[TokenLiberal]

This does not come as a surprise to me. 

It's also complete rubbish, obviously. ATS is just some obscure conspiracy theory forum, nothing more. If it stays down, it's simply because its admins don't care enough to fix it

[Ksihkehe]

It's also complete rubbish, obviously. ATS is just some obscure conspiracy theory forum, nothing more. If it stays down, it's simply because its admins don't care enough to fix it

Deep insight... gleaned from a few weeks of membership... 25 years after the site started and over a decade past its peak. There is far more history than that.

Though I don't disagree that neglect is the proximal cause of this outage and each outage over the past several years, you are totally incorrect about the idea that nobody in intelligence cared about ATS. That's simply false and sites like it have faced similarly hostile conditions for a long time. ATS has mostly been a cesspool for some time because of the fallout from the behind the scenes warfare all "alternative" sites faced and the general environment that the thought police mentality has engendered.

The activist bullshit that the US has been funding is part of what caused all these sites to lose ad revenue. ATS was already demonetized when that phase of the war started because they never found a viable alternative that would scale like Google Ads. Forums didn't actually just die, they were murdered so that people could be funneled to places that happened to have a bunch of pseudo-civilian intelligence people working in corporate. Obviously somebody somewhere, with very deep ideological connections to people that run and approve US "aid" programs, most certainly cared or there wouldn't have been expensive harassment campaigns. They were targeting any kind of services -from payment processors to hosts to ISPs to ancillary vendors- that provided the means for sites to operate. All the stragglers that managed to stay afloat and healthy without the ad platform from Google were at risk.

When the CIA is funding their foreign influence campaigns and it's feeding back into US corporate politics, somebody sure as hell cares. The activist campaigns and harassment were the plausible deniability that sites losing access to services was entirely based on free market forces. It was bullshit, funded by the very people it was meant to deceive at the behest of nationless oligarchs that can't afford to have peasants from all their different fiefdoms communicating freely.

They don't spent billions and billions of dollars a year to censor things they don't care about while oligarch "philanthropists" spend billions and billions more running counter-messaging. It wasn't just ATS, but anywhere that didn't have heavily moderated or curated content. If they didn't care about it they also probably wouldn't be spending so much time legislating about it either, nor threatening foreign nationals operating businesses in foreign jurisdictions over censorship demands.

ATS was compromised, but it was from the pressure that years of asymmetrical warfare on free speech did. The sites that didn't compromise mostly ceased to exist, with few remaining. Those that do remain have almost no reach or they'll end up facing the same multi-pronged attacks.

Keep in mind that while China, Russia, and North Korea, are always in the news for their hacking and digital operations in Western media... the US is home to a large part of the corporate tech sector and outspend the rest of the world in defense just with what's on the books. They're also quite cozy with Israel with their extensive cyber operations that extend into a private cyber defense industry. A position that the cyber operations of the US and their closest allies are not in fact much more extensive than any of the adversary countries often cited as bad actors, without fail, would be the conclusion of anyone that consumed the very sort of information the US operations propagate. There is no reason to believe that this wouldn't extend to domestic operations, particularly given the illegal spying on US citizens that is publicly documented to be pervasive and ongoing.

[TokenLiberal]

The fact that forums like ATS are hard to monetize is not due to government intervention, it's because advertisers don't want to be associated with it. I've been on a number of gaming forums, and was very involved in one of them. We (the admins) were always trying to get support from the company that developed our game, and mostly succeeded, but they always had requirements when it came to content moderation. I was trying to be as lax as humanly possible moderating the place, but it was a fine line to walk. Community managers sometimes actually came to us saying they read something on our forum that the company doesn't want to be associated with, and we should moderate better. The implication there is that they would be hesitant to support us in any way if we allowed controversial content. No government was ever involved in any of this. It's just corporations being careful not to be associated with things that people have strong negative emotional responses to. It's bad for business.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

The fact that forums like ATS are hard to monetize is not due to government intervention, it's because advertisers don't want to be associated with it. I've been on a number of gaming forums, and was very involved in one of them. We (the admins) were always trying to get support from the company that developed our game, and mostly succeeded, but they always had requirements when it came to content moderation. I was trying to be as lax as humanly possible moderating the place, but it was a fine line to walk. Community managers sometimes actually came to us saying they read something on our forum that the company doesn't want to be associated with, and we should moderate better. The implication there is that they would be hesitant to support us in any way if we allowed controversial content. No government was ever involved in any of this. It's just corporations being careful not to be associated with things that people have strong negative emotional responses to. It's bad for business.

I think this explanation is the most reasonable one.

[FCD]

I'm not sure what to think on the subject of ATS and a shadow-hand's involvement.

I think it's certainly possible, but I also see lots of things which don't add up to that same conclusion. And, maybe 'shadow-hand' is a premature usage. Perhaps I should have said 'government hand', because I very much DO think there was something going on at ATS. "What?" though, is the $64,000 question. If I had to speculate, I'd say it is far more likely that the later days of ATS were a product of some incomplete or unsuccessful PAC action, trying to collect ammunition against one political party or the other (i.e. conservative or liberal). But, which one is completely unclear; I can see angles for both. I could see conservatives trying to draw out "gotcha's" from the left. However, given the loose reigns on conservative posting, I am also inclined to think it could have been a liberal PAC hoping to draw out radical conservatives and get them to start talking crazy stuff (including even possible violence, etc.)

I don't think it was a government administration control thing (neither Biden's nor Trump's, but I could see a bit of an Obama angle if pushed).

As for the advertising angle, politics aside, I think it's important to realize that discussion forum boards are pretty dated technology. They've been overtaken by shorter form social media such as FB, Tik-Tok and X (among many others). People's attention spans have been reduced to 20 seconds and/or 280 characters or less. Society is getting dumber. Advertising dollars are going to go to the places where the majority of people go, and this is not on long-form forum boards. Hate to say it, but we're a dying breed.

[Ksihkehe]

The fact that forums like ATS are hard to monetize is not due to government intervention, it's because advertisers don't want to be associated with it.

Right, because advertisers are a monolithic group that seek monolithic demographic skews for all their client's ads. Thus, all controversial content will -globally- fit within a very neat box that just happens to match the ideology du jour of European globalists and liberals. There is simply no market that finds American conservative ideas good for their image. The 200 million votes for Trump in three races are not a viable market segment, even in the US, and their political opinions are too controversial to advertise anything next to. Right wing politicians are getting banned from ballots in Europe because there is a growing movement of people that have been disenfranchised by authoritarian liberal policy, but there is no market there either. Everyone had and will continue to have liberal European values. Are you for fetish performances for children, welcome ad partner. Not for giving fetish performances for children, sorry you're "controversial" and "reputational risk" for businesses.

It gets exhausting dealing with people that have no problem assuming their lack of experience with real things in the real world should in no way diminish the authority and conviction with which they make sweeping statements about it.

If you are incapable of addressing any of the things that contradict the opinion you had when you walked in the door, this isn't really a discussion. It's just bickering. I have addressed portions of your assertions that I disagree with and presented information that contradicts your position that it was just free-market causation from start to finish. I also pointed out that I agreed with a portion of your statement as it related to ATS. Restating your prior opinion with the same logic and absent any further information, save for a singular experience with a singular advertiser, doesn't really advance this discussion. You didn't ask for evidence or refute the truth of my statements aside from a broad denial. I can only believe that you simply don't care because your opinion won't change or you already know they're true and you don't wish to deal with moving the goal posts. In either case, it sort of makes further discussion moot.

You have trapped yourself in an untenable absolutist position from which you're unlikely to retreat. In my experience over the last decade, people would rather repeat the same thing until they "win" by attrition than put in the work to have a discussion. The biases enforced in the public square have led them to believe that their trite ideological beliefs are universal axioms to everyone else on the planet, so repeating their false axioms is the only tool in the toolbox. Yes, in case you were wondering, you frequently post your political beliefs and expect them to be accepted as axioms. I'm not going through to point them out, but I'll gladly tell you if you're correct should you decide to audit them yourself. I can think of three instances off the top of my head, but I doubt that's all of them. They're non-starters for me, so I typically just stop reading when I get to them and move on to something else.

Reread what I wrote and observe how many times I hedge my positions with qualifiers like "part of", "mostly", "general", and "almost".  Read the context each comment is made in, what it applies to, the qualifiers I used, and how I provide deductive/inductive reasoning for assertions. You have offered virtually none of those things to support or bolster your premise.

If my premise was outlined as an absolute and yours used qualifiers, this chessboard would be entirely reversed. 

You can partially blame censorship and social stigma for this disadvantage, actually. If you live in the industrialized West and believe in liberal or globalist ideology, you have had few opportunities in the past decade to craft strong positions by facing rigorous discourse from independent thinkers. The excommunication of those that violate any of the globalist commandments also means you barely get any rigorous debate on any of the serious issues from your associates. Your false axioms are accepted without any discussion. Everyone gets a trophy, but nobody gets good at the game.

I've been on a number of gaming forums, and was very involved in one of them.

I would leave this second part out of any conversations in which you want to be taken seriously, unless it's a conversation with people from that community.

[TokenLiberal]

I'm not sure what to think on the subject of ATS and a shadow-hand's involvement.

I think it's certainly possible, but I also see lots of things which don't add up to that same conclusion.  And, maybe 'shadow-hand' is a premature usage.  Perhaps I should have said 'government hand', because I very much DO think there was something going on at ATS.  "What?" though, is the $64,000 question.  If I had to speculate, I'd say it is far more likely that the later days of ATS were a product of some incomplete or unsuccessful PAC action, trying to collect ammunition against one political party or the other (i.e. conservative or liberal).  But, which one is completely unclear; I can see angles for both.  I could see conservatives trying to draw out "gotcha's" from the left.  However, given the loose reigns on conservative posting, I am also inclined to think it could have been a liberal PAC hoping to draw out radical conservatives and get them to start talking crazy stuff (including even possible violence, etc.)

I don't think it was a government administration control thing (neither Biden's nor Trump's, but I could see a bit of an Obama angle if pushed). 

As for the advertising angle, politics aside, I think it's important to realize that discussion forum boards are pretty dated technology.  They've been overtaken by shorter form social media such as FB, Tik-Tok and X (among many others).  People's attention spans have been reduced to 20 seconds and/or 280 characters or less.  Society is getting dumber.  Advertising dollars are going to go to the places where the majority of people go, and this is not on long-form forum boards.  Hate to say it, but we're a dying breed.

ATS is way too small to be politically relevant

[TokenLiberal]

It gets exhausting dealing with people that have no problem assuming their lack of experience with real things in the real world should in no way diminish the authority and conviction with which they make sweeping statements about it.

You have no idea what I do or don't have experience with. Frankly, I find you exhausting to deal with as well. You tend to rant, and every time you reply to me you can't help throwing in a heavy dose of ad hominem. You seem wholly uninterested in having a respectful discussion. Not exactly an appealing environment for anyone you disagree with. I think you should consider changing your attitude; talking to people we disagree with helps us grow and can be very rewarding, in my experience.

[Michigan Swampbuck]

I don't want to derail this topic, but I felt compelled to complement Ksihkehe on his statement as follows . . .

" In my experience over the last decade, people would rather repeat the same thing until they "win" by attrition than put in the work to have a discussion. The biases enforced in the public square have led them to believe that their trite ideological beliefs are universal axioms to everyone else on the planet, so repeating their false axioms is the only tool in the toolbox."

This technique as described is something I too have noticed, however, I would qualify that these are biases that come from a life of experiences and are not exclusive to anyone's reactions to public opinion, regardless of how it may have helped form their own. There is motivation of course, some people simply can't except not winning or not having the last word at least. Like you said, this is just a tool from the toolbox.

[FCD]

I don't want to derail this topic, but I felt compelled to complement Ksihkehe on his statement as follows . . .

" In my experience over the last decade, people would rather repeat the same thing until they "win" by attrition than put in the work to have a discussion. The biases enforced in the public square have led them to believe that their trite ideological beliefs are universal axioms to everyone else on the planet, so repeating their false axioms is the only tool in the toolbox."

This technique as described is something I too have noticed, however, I would qualify that these are biases that come from a life of experiences and are not exclusive to anyone's reactions to public opinion, regardless of how it may have helped form their own. There is motivation of course, some people simply can't except not winning or not having the last word at least. Like you said, this is just a tool from the toolbox.

Then there's that bit about sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes, and repeatedly screaming..."I CAN'T HEEEAR YOU!  I CAN'T HEEEEEEEAR YOU!  I CAN'T HEEEEEAR YOU!"

(Oh, and we can't forget about the..."I know you are, but what am I?  I know you are, but what am I"...and..."I'm rubber and you're glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!  Nanner, nanner, NANNER!"  (sticks tongue out))