It seems like within the last year or so steps are being taken to "moat" the internet. What I mean by this is to isolate sites that talk about real CIA ops ( as opposed to fake plame-gate depictions of the CIA) from the big glossy "left" sites such as Huffington Post, Counterpunch etc THAT LIKE IT OR NOT GET WAY WAY MORE HITS than other sites that do talk realistically about CIA history, and other unflattering aspects of US intel. history.

Another example of this "Moating" process is evident in John Simkin's threads relating to the CIA and Wikipedia and Google. Sites that vindicate the CIA are promoted, while connections to Spartacus-Ed Forum are snipped.

How many thousands of curious young minds have thus been detoured from truth?

One way we can fight back is by posting Youtube videos and connections to this site on other sites that get a lot more hits.

Here is one example: I just posted this ten hours ago,on St. Louis Post Dispatch site and it has already received more than one hundred hits. How many other threads got sent from this one?

No man is an island, somone once said. Sometimes, it seems like the new CIA strategy for sites like this one is "keep this site an island" Judging from the fact that I have almost never seen more than 33 viewers on this site at the same time, it seems like this stragegy is working. I would have expected there would have been a growing audience to this site, but since I discovered it about two years ago, this has not happened.

http://www.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=440264

I agree, but the opportunity may not last forever....


A blogger's synopsis of Viacom's complaint against YouTube:

18 Reasons why Google and YouTube are Guilty of Copyright Infringement

http://googlewatch.eweek.com/content/youtu...fringement.html


From CNNMoney.com:

YouTube rivals: Thanks, Viacom!

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/14/commentary...sion=2007031413

I think the concerns you raise about 'moating' of the internet are valid and important.

However, I feel there may be other reasons this forum does not get the numbers of 'casual visitors' one might expect.

Foremost among these, IMO, is that the site is designed so only members can see the most recent posts, listed via 'View New Posts'.

I know when I visit other forums, I like to see what's new and current. It's hard for visitors to see that at a glance on this forum.

I also think the search function works poorly. Perhaps I haven't learnt how to use it properly yet. But others may well have the same problem. Short words are not processed. Inverted commas don't seem to work as they should to locate "whole phrases such as this". Search results point to entire threads; these can be quite long and it's hard to search through a long thread to find an exact reference.

Taking these factors together, I think newcomers may find the forum hard to navigate, even though they can probably tell it's a great store of info and discussion - especially about JFK.

I make these comments as constructive criticism, not to denigrate or downplay the forum's real achievements.

Maybe, but Google would not have purchased youtube if they didn't think it was feasible business model, even with the obvious legal problems youtube had when it was purchased. Frankly I don't understand why google seems so unconcerned, but they dove right in.
I think youtube and/or sites like it are here to stay... at least until congress finds some excuse to destroy the pesky internet.

http://www.youtube.com/group/assassination -all the assasination videos you could ever want.
John