(04-25-2023, 02:08 AM)MisterSpock Wrote: I find ATS to be pretty questionable at this point, who owns it, who are these "new owners" that have been around forever, but fail to identify themselves or wish to cash in on their supposed long term membership that is "rooted" in the origins/original intent of ATS.
What's with that "why cant we go from a conspiracy site to respected media" comment.
Respected by who, the mainstream media and twitter crowd?
That would kind of refute the whole "deny ignorance" thing and "conspiracy" thing. Since "conspiracy" these days is nothing more than pointing out truth through observation.
Sounds pretty sus to me, sounds like some big media brand bought it up and wants to be the next buzzfeed or some such garbage.
I believe you're correct in your assumption, many websites still believe there's money to be gained
by leaning close to the MSM-style of information deliverance. This -of course, demands its audience
accepts certain types of narrative that benefits the preservation of the new technique of bringing
so-called news and a preferred way of thinking conducive to these massive Government-funded
mainstream companies.
Their product isn't very intellectual these days and tends to cleave more towards emotive provocation
in the hopes it maintains the audiences attention. Political news is really press-releases parcelled as
'exclusives' with only a kernel of truth regarding reality and are usually trial balloons. But... they won't
tell you that during their slick recitations of somebody else's words.
Whatever ATS is now may be seen by its Moderators as the same but with a slight tilt away from the
'internet-conspiracy-stuff', but it still means a change as taken place. The world is still the same, the
hunt for intriguing information is still a viable component for websites like ATS, so why -so late in the
maintenance of ATS, is there a need to change?
Read The TV Guide, yer' don't need a TV.