Better provide some proof of that right now matey, this user asked us if we'd like a supporting post for the AMA and we said yes. I'll give you 10 minutes to provide evidence to the contrary before rule 10 is acted upon..

The site referred to only started posting a few days ago and it's social media was created in May 2017.

Mods may be unaware of it but it seems highly suspicious to an outside observer.

Perhaps a more accurate assessment is the site owner is conspiring to dupe the community with the appearance of being a legitimate conspiracy site.

That's all well and good but if the OP thinks accusing us of financially benefitting from choosing to share supporting information is acceptable he's got a nasty shock coming.

Lol, yeah it's a bit of a loaded OP.

I actually didn't realise the OP had already been banned so my comment was a little unfair, I just logged on and saw this thread and was frankly offended that they felt this was acceptable behaviour. It's not.

So I see lots of posts on here that are dedicated to calling out one user, specifically for what they post and the user calls them a shill. If I look back at those posts, will I find that those users who created the posts are also banned? Or was OP here banned for something else?

You seem to have a vested interest in hovering in a deleted thread dedicated to attacking the mods, that's... interesting. And here you are also attacking moderator actions. Very interesting.

I'm literally just asking if OP was banned for a shill accusation post or something else. How is that an attack?

And yeah, I am interested because I was one of the first people to comment on this thread last night. Woke up to find it removed so I looked at the most recent comments and found yours.

OP was indeed banned for a pretty blatant shill accusation. I didn't realise they'd already been banned for it when I woke up and commented myself.

Don't sweat the small stuff, yo.

I am concerned, I'm just tired of witch hunts going after the mods here. From what I know/experienced, they are legit people and among the most top notch here on reddit. As long as OP was not a mod doing it, it's fine with me. It's quality content, that took time and effort to compile. If OP made a few bucks, good for him. Are you a Commie or something?

lol, you're little witch hunt is adding nothing. Ask the regulars about me :). Anyways, you sound angry with your 3 month old account. How much have your contributed? Nothing... And yes, you're a Commie, come at me, bruh...

Nope... Are you? BTW, don't care about downvotes :)

Don't care, not 12 ;)

I'm a commie, and I find it concerning that you're defending something so obviously suspect.

It's direction? I've been dissapointment in this subs direction since I stopped paying as much attention in December.

Not sweating the small stuff is how a free people eventually become slaves to tyranny. Incrementalism.

Not really. I'd actually say it's reversed. Knee jerk reactionaries/emotions/fee fees is why were are at the place where we are.

It's also how you become a nervous wreck and throttle all the joy out of life. Pick your battles.

Well you know what they say, life's a bitch. lol

I usually hate the posts that directly call out users or other posts, but this is actually a pretty valid point. The only links this guy submits are from his own website. There are only 4 people on all of Reddit that have submitted links from that site, he's one of them. Another is a guy that is a mod of loads of conspiracy-related subs, but has a post history that's significantly less concerning. The other two I think are just the same guy on two different accounts.

Thank you for pointing this out. I would not have noticed. It's bad enough that this place is all swamped up with Republican brown shirts -- they need the additional affirmative action cheating of mod stickies now? That's nuts.

Over the course 3 days, 5 posts in this sub (posted by two different users) have come from that site. 4 of those 5 were posted by this user, who posts absolutely no other links in this sub. Not to mention one of the top comments

I wish there were a rule on the sub about diversifying your sources. This is an issue in some of the small business and marketing subs where people just spam their own shit and don't participate at all.

All while making a profit off the subs users.

This is a scurrilous accusation with zero evidence provided.

Are any of the modding team associated with rightwavemedia.com?

I stickied that Kevin Ives post to provide some context in advance of the AMA. Several other mods voted for the sticky for the same reason. I have no connection or association with rightwavemedia or any third party blog or website. To my knowledge, none of the other mods do either, but you can message the mods to ask.

Another is a guy that is a mod of loads of conspiracy-related subs

I think there may have been a misunderstanding because of this remark?
Unless /u/RandomNameNo1 can show that the site is connected to a mod from this sub?

Reposting this to OP directly since the thread has been removed:

I've debated addressing this, but I will because the mods have and I value transparency just as much as anyone here.

We have nothing to do with the mods and yes we're a new site. I have only submitted content here that I think is relevant to the community's interest and I have been lurking here on and off for years.

I also have never had any contact with the mods nor did I ask for my post to be stickied, another user may have or the mods may just have done it without being asked.

Yes, we recently placed one ad at the very bottom of the articles, which is far fewer, less intrusive, and less profitable than almost all news sites and other sites that are linked here.

You are all absolutely more than welcome to use an AdBlocker or use archive links to our site, we care more about the content than we do the revenue.

Speaking of revenue, I'd like to give a little specific insight into that in the hopes that others don't get accused of exploiting the community. Internet ads are far less profitable for small publishers than you'd think. That ad made a grand total of 17 cents yesterday, and it took me 10 hours to research, write, and get live. We also have hosting and domain costs that are far, far higher than that.

We will always only submit meticulously researched articles to this sub and value your feedback. Once again, you're always absolutely welcome to use an AdBlocker, use archive.is, or just downvote rightwavemedia.com links if you just don't like us and don't believe me.

But I promise you that we submitted that article for general interest and are very glad that some people appreciated it, and I'm sorry if you didn't.

Edit: To be clear, 17 cents across the entire site, not just that article.

Honestly, I felt the same when that 'Everythings A Rich Mans Trick' creator got a stickied AMA. With a big notice that he was fundraising for a follow up doc.

Just seemed to show preferential treatment. I had no problem with the AMA being a sticky but the money-seeking aspect made it look like advertising tbh.

I just noticed all this. Definitely suspect, and her links to Russia-insider, Judicial Watch and Wikileaks make this all the more intriguing.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/lawsuit-could-sink-clintons-linda-ives-says-she-can-prove-feds-covered-her-sons-murder

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/no_author/this-could-sink-the-clintons/

Remember Ed Butowsky? The guy who was paying Rod Wheeler, the Seth Rich private investigator? Well it seems to me there are elements of republican influence that have a web of websites they use to push these stories which all end up being attacks on Democrats, usually the Clinton's.

Wait, are you accusing Linda Ives? Because that's a whole different allegation and not the point of this thread.

Bizarre that you'd make underhanded suggestions about a woman searching for justice for her murdered son.

I'm not accusing her, she wants answers which I accept is fair.

However I find it hard to believe this woman, of her own volition, did an AMA on 4chan and also that she filed a new lawsuit regarding the 30 year old case in August 2016, in the midst of the election, without external influence.

I've debated addressing this, but I will because the mods have and I value transparency just as much as anyone here.

We have nothing to do with the mods and yes we're a new site. I have only submitted content here that I think is relevant to the community's interest and I have been lurking here on and off for years. I also have never had any contact with the mods nor did I ask for my post to be stickied, another user may have or the mods may just have done it without being asked.

Yes, we recently placed one ad at the very bottom of the articles, which is far fewer, less intrusive, and less profitable than almost all news sites and other sites that are linked here.

You are all absolutely more than welcome to use an AdBlocker or use archive links to our site, we care more about the content than we do the revenue.

Speaking of revenue, I'd like to give a little specific insight into that in the hopes that others don't get accused of exploiting the community. That ad made a grand total of 17 cents yesterday, and it took me 10 hours to research, write, and get live. We also have hosting and domain costs that are far, far higher than that.

We will always only submit meticulously researched articles to this sub and value your feedback. Once again, you're always absolutely welcome to use an AdBlocker, use archive.is, or just downvote rightwavemedia.com links if you just don't like us and don't believe me.

But I promise you that we submitted that article for general interest and are very glad that some people appreciated it, and I'm sorry if you didn't.

Thank christ there are people here questioning this instead of instantly getting on board sight unseen.

Don't care, not 12 ;)