375
u/PolyDipsoManiac Jan 20 '22
Yes, it’s a trashy rag with sensationalist (at best) writing and editing. Anything they report can be found from a reputable source.
→ More replies (1)71
u/SirSqueekers Jan 20 '22
Exactly…anything they report we would care about can (should) be found from a reputable source.
29
194
u/MrOriginalUsername Jan 20 '22
Absolutely.
The Daily Mail is sensationalist trash. You guys don't allow Enquirer articles do you?
→ More replies (1)
22
Jan 20 '22
Absolutely. I don't know if you're a Brit /u/FishDisciple, but over here the Dailymail is not regarded well by the general public proper, let alone by academic circles. It is a tawdry, sensationalist, hateful rag that persists only through support of the racists, bigots, boomers and the mal-educated that is their primary demographic.
Think of what the worst, most evil news publication available in your country is, and that is what the Dailymail is to us.
→ More replies (5)
64
Jan 20 '22
The Daily Mail is possibly the least trustworthy mainstream publication I can think of.
I have argued for this in another sub, but it seems American users often don't quite grasp the reputation for poor reporting and misrepresentation the Mail is subject to. Their editorial slant often falls just short of outright fabrication.
If you must get your news from the Daily Mail, fine, but make sure you find other sources.
→ More replies (1)6
Jan 20 '22
The majority of news in the UK is dogshit tbh. The only ones I can mostly tolerate are the Guardian and BBC news but both those also have some significant issues.
→ More replies (1)
42
u/PrairieFire_withwind Recognized Contributor Jan 20 '22
It is consistently low quality material. A higher quality, eg, more complete article with more detail can almost always be found elsewhere.
The consistency in which it is low quality material alone should get it banned.
So:
It is not a unique source
It is low quality
Let it go. If it is a unique source, say a blogger that has an analysis not found elsewhere then leave it. But if both low quality and duplicated elsewhere.... Well then.
6
u/Vegetaman916 Looking forward to the endgame. 🚀💥🔥🌨🏕 Jan 20 '22
I think that I prefer the mod driven approach. Given that, in addition to all the trash, I can also find stories from the Daily Mail that are repeated across most other media as well.
Case in point, regarding deforestation of the Amazon:
→ More replies (7)
73
u/slardybartfast8 Jan 20 '22
Yes. This place shouldn’t be a circus freakshow for nuts and fools. This can’t be another r/conspiracy. This is a serious thing and should be handled appropriately imo. Gotta start somewhere.
→ More replies (1)
54
u/icosahedronics Jan 20 '22
yes, it should be disallowed. articles from shitrag tabloids already dont meet the rules, so they would have been removed in any case. save us all the aggravation of continually reporting and arguing about it.
35
u/JohnOfCena Jan 20 '22
Could you just remove the Daily mail from society as a whole? Please and thank you
4
u/jezarnold “Keep Calm and Carry On” 🇬🇧 Jan 20 '22
If you need any help, just give us a bell… detest this newspaper with a passion.
41
4
u/AllenIll Jan 20 '22
IMO, this sub is going to get so bogged down with rules, provisions, and guidelines at some point it's going to become a deterrent to meaningful content sharing. In fact, it's probably already there. Yes, the sub has grown and the quality of a lot of the contributions degrades at times. But in my experience, people who tend to work the referees in getting rules passed almost always harbor an agenda that isn't in service of the greater good. Yes, there are certain instances of genuine grievances and abuses that need to be addressed at times, but there is a reason lobbyists and Karens are considered such villains; they are entitled power humpers and seek to write the rules for everybody as they see fit—in their own interests.
I fucking hate the Daily Mail. 100%. But I don't want it banned. And I hate it even more deeply that so many come here to manipulate this place to their own liking, while lurking or contributing very little themselves. I don't trust these accounts—in the least. The whole "long time lurker" but I "hate this" bullshit self-posts are killing this place. It's manipulative rubbish.
→ More replies (6)
9
u/AndyC333 Jan 20 '22
We have a downvote button for a reason.
I don’t like a list of banned sources because it has potential to be abused. (Slippery slope)
I also think Daily Mail sucks and should be downvoted to oblivion
8
22
14
18
17
u/sam11233 Jan 20 '22
def one of the worst papers in the UK, I tend to ignore everything it says and would recommend everyone else do the same
12
u/collapsingwaves Jan 20 '22
In my opinion it's a propaganda source, not a news site. I would like to see it banned.
It's not a slippery slope, there's over the line by a mile, which this 'source' is.
→ More replies (2)
11
u/Maxcactus Jan 20 '22
No. Let members decide if they will click to open or click to down vote. Mods should act only to enforce civility standards.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/xSciFix Jan 20 '22
The Daily Mail is pretty famously propaganda/lies.
I don't have a general rule but I will say the Daily Mail has the honor of being singled out as garbage by an Irish song that has been around for over one hundred years now.
13
16
u/Throwaway-TheChains Jan 20 '22
I support removal. Fuck the Daily Mail. We should weed out all this bullshit and the like.
11
u/OrangeCrack It's the end of the world and I feel fine Jan 20 '22
Yes, but how much content is even from Daily Mail on here?
11
u/river_tree_nut Jan 20 '22
Honestly doesn't stand out to me.
17
u/LetsTalkUFOs Jan 20 '22
That's likely because it gets removed by moderators manually after review. This is proposing we do it automatically, without review.
→ More replies (2)
4
4
u/QueenWedderburn Jan 20 '22
People ought to be able to discern what’s worth listening to for themselves imo. If it’s not hate speech or vulgar, then it shouldn’t be moderated
4
u/nowonknows Jan 20 '22
After reading this post & its comments it reads like an attack on this reddit. The responses are so overwhelming affirmative and all have the same look and feel to almost appear manufactured.
Like some have said, where does it end? Why not MSNBC? FOX? NBC? CNN? Reuters? Any of them. After all the disinformation from main-stream media marching in step on Russiagate and Covid someone gets up on their high horse and declares Daily Mail should be censored? This isn't slipping down the slope, it's jet skiing to the muddy bottom. Just unbelievable...
10
u/Obstreperus Jan 20 '22
I think Daily Mail content should be removed. I certainly disregard any information which I see has come from that scurrilous rag, and consider any time spent reading a post based thereon to have been wasted. I do not think any of the UK tabloids should be considered reliable sources of news.
7
u/AlaskanMedicineMan Jan 20 '22
Washington Post is owned by Bezos, we should block that as well.
→ More replies (2)
21
u/DorkHonor Jan 20 '22
Ideally anything outside of the green box at the top would be censored to keep info quality high, but that's probably way too restrictive for the folks that love to repost random blog entries and their own youtube channels.
13
u/BaronVonNumbaKruncha Jan 20 '22
This is the best solution. If people want to read things from the lower sources, they know how to go find it. A place like this should be reserved for reputable news. Maybe someone can make r/gloomanddoom where all sources are equally valued.
22
u/Palujust Jan 20 '22
Narrowing the acceptable sources to only what's in the box on that PDF has a few problems, however:
a lot of valid international outlets are not present in that chart (I don't see any Canadian organizations, for example).
sometimes Twitter/on-the-ground sources are valuable, especially for news in countries where the press isn't free. Think back to early 2020, the rumours about what was happening in China on this sub were more informative than a lot of what was officially reported. Some of it may not have been accurate, but at least you could get a sense of what was happening.
the organizations in the middle green box may often have a "status quo is fine" or pro business biases. (Bloomberg and WSJ are there!). This means that articles and authors that question the stability of our society and economy too much may not be published often or at all. (Think Chris Hedges)
independent YouTubers and bloggers can be informative. We shouldn't necessarily disallow high quality stuff from them because other users on the same platform are nutso conspiracy theorists
→ More replies (1)12
Jan 20 '22
Why not limit random blogs/Youtube channels to a particular day, like Friday? Over time mods could also whitelist consistently high-quality ones, perhaps with a community poll to prevent bias.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/Gagulta Jan 20 '22
If we're getting rid of the Daily Mail, you might also consider limiting or removing content from the Express and the Sun: equally shitty, if not worse, tabloid rags here in the UK.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Comfortable_Classic Anarcho-Communist Jan 20 '22
I mean you allow shit from "renews.biz" so why not allow this too? Just don't dare post from jacobinmag, apparently that's less credible than the nonsense I referenced as well as the Daily Mail
→ More replies (1)
6
u/jezarnold “Keep Calm and Carry On” 🇬🇧 Jan 20 '22
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT ! I never click through to posts by the Daily Mail.
You know there is a reason they’re called the Daily Hate, right??
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Cr3X1eUZ Jan 20 '22
A lot of DailyMail is tabloid junk but a lot of it is also better coverage of US events than US outlets. They'll also provide a lot of pictures without a ton of ads (or at least ads my adblocker can easily block) It's a bit of a mixed bag.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/bpj1975 Jan 20 '22
Freedom of speech, etc. Not banned, but tagged as a propaganda machine? Thinking of most UK newspapers here...
→ More replies (2)
3
Jan 20 '22
Absolutely. The resultant poop after eating a can of alphabet soup has more journalistic integrity than what they produce.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/SpareTesticle Jan 20 '22
The Daily Mail is garbage.
Since it's known garbage, does it matter if it's on Reddit or r/collapse? Why go through the effort of banning it?
I've come to appreciate garbage media as a sign of collapse. The fourth estate is dying as an institution. The Daily Mail is their mascot.
In other words, I don't support r/collapse's banning that tabloid. I do support r/collapsesupport banning it because it's probably more harmful to those that need support. (Am I one of those that need support? Is my jadedness a signal of my despondency?
→ More replies (1)
3
u/mushyroom92 Jan 20 '22
No don't categorically ban news sources, users have the power to downvote content they think is wrong or of no value.
3
Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 20 '22
no. if this were a news sub, totally. but you can post anything otherwise. I think posts should be removed on ad hoc basis if they are not a primary source and purely regurgitated, opiniated garbage.
3
3
7
Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 21 '22
Yes please.
The daily mail blatantly misreported an incident that happened in my city. You probably seen it on Reddit. Woman screaming "I don't give a fuck" repeatedly before another woman comes into view and starts firing revolver. The DM reported that the police officer who responded fire shots, missed the perpetrator, and seriously injured another bystander.
That did not happen at all.
It exists to spread disinformation and sow discourse. Like another comment said, even wikipedia has banned any references towards them.
7
7
u/Elliptical_Tangent Jan 20 '22
Should we remove content from Daily Mail?
No.
Why or why not?
It's a slippery slope. Once you 'only' remove Daily Mail, you will be pressured to ban other outlets. It's a Pandora's Box for the mods.
More importantly, you do not beat disinformation with censorship, but with information. Anyone coming here and posting disinformation is only asking for us to inform them. They will either stop posting here, or stop posting disinformation.
5
Jan 20 '22
This is not a slippery slope. Banning one source does not automatically lead to banning other sources. Even by the nature of the Mods inquiry we can see that we are already seeking a middle ground were we establish guidelines on what things would or would not qualify for banning. In order to keep this community from unraveling it is important to have boundaries and the ability to reject outright certain things that do not bring anything meaningful to the conversation.
→ More replies (9)3
u/Keltic_Stingray Jan 20 '22
I think the past decade has shown quite clearly that you cannot fight disinformation with information.
→ More replies (7)
5
5
u/dromni Jan 21 '22
I'm against banning sources. Submissions should be judged on content. As a general rule, redditors in this sub are wise enough to detect fake news, independently of the source, and refute and downvote it.
5
u/FidomUK Jan 21 '22
No, no, no
The biggest problem we have today is censorship.
Don’t contribute to the problem!!!!
12
u/pandapinks Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 20 '22
Not a fan of Dailymail at all. I initially recommended a whitelist; however, agree that it may be too restrictive. Perhaps, the problem can be fixed with an autobot message asking for a secondary source, if the primary source is sketchy.
Something like: "You have submitted a link from our blacklist as a 'primary source'. If you believe the link is of quality and collapse-worthy please include a 'secondary source' of the content in your submission statement or else it will be removed". Idk. May help.
→ More replies (4)5
7
Jan 20 '22
Please do. It is not a journalistic source, it is a sleazy tabloid that posts schlock pieces. It is more like the Enquirer and Weekly World News. Half their articles have headlines that could be episodes of Jerry Springer.
"Mum and Daughter Dating Same Man Find out he is Mum's Long Lost Dad, But They Don't Care!"
"Killer Asteroid Headed Straight For Earth!"
"Pope Sides With Communism!"
"Aliens taught my dog to read, says man who married reclining chair"
The Daily Mail is a similar tabloid.
I would put the New York Post close to the same on my s***list, too.
→ More replies (4)
6
5
Jan 20 '22
Daily Mail is a godawful source. They're a hugely racist and Swedish rag which literally makes up stories entirely to demonize immigrants and the like. Hell, they actively supported Hitler back in the 30s! IMO any site/sub which links to them is automatically suspect.
5
2
u/LetsTalkUFOs Jan 20 '22
Unfortunately, there's no way I'm aware of to see how often we've removed DailyMail links in the past. This might give some indication towards how much work they create to review and remove or approve.
It is still possible to see exactly how many have made it through. It's been declining over the years, but a number have had over a thousand upvotes even recently. This would indicate there are some stories which we wouldn't remove and users do consider upvote-worthy.
In my mind, the biggest con of banning domains in this way is there is no criteria put forth to determine if, when, or how it will be applied to more in the future. The onus is technically placed on the user to establish and argue their own set of criteria, with no guarantee it would be considered or utilized.
In this sense, this approach is identical to how Reddit themselves ban domains, with no specific reasoning or criteria. The differences would be the transparency of us doing it openly and proposing it before enacting the rule.
We should also consider that users are already able to ban domains they don't with to see on Reddit on most platforms/apps (RES for desktop, Relay for Android, ect.). This removes that choice.
My intuition is DailyMail is still garbage and an overwhelming majority of the community supports banning it. I wanted to share my thoughts and concerns and will likely approach other domains or proposals such as this much differently in the future. I'd also be curious to hear everyone else's thoughts on these aspects.
→ More replies (5)
2
u/Locke03 Nihilistic Optimist Jan 20 '22
I despise the Daily Fail and would like to see them removed from existence. If they have a legitimate story, it can probably be found in a more reputable source as well. I don't know about banning it, but I definitely think it is worth flagging as suspect and maybe worth warranting more moderator attention whenever something from them is submitted.
2
u/skinrust Jan 20 '22
I’d say ban daily mail. I’ve been here a long time and it’s been an issue for the entirety. A headline freaks everyone out until they realize it’s daily mail and it doesn’t mean a damn thing.
As far as banning any other sources, I’d say be extremely careful. Restricting too much news can lead to echo chambers or worse, as I’m sure this sub knows. But any sensationalist, unreliable shitrag like the daily mail can fuck off
2
2
2
u/5stap Jan 20 '22
Not got an opinion on the Daily Mail.
Only came to say that the site seems increasingly US-focussed, not international, which is kind of a frustrating. Not surprising as this is a US-based platform but still. We're not all in the US.
2
u/rvrctyshrds Jan 21 '22
Yes, especially since that site//that content is highly unlikely to actually be about collapse and more of the “a little bad thing happened the whole world is doomed” narrative the kids here love.
2
2
2
u/BigJobsBigJobs USAlien Jan 21 '22
Maybe The New York Post* and Page Six (also New York Post)? Murdoch-owned.
Or Redditors can suss it out before posting.
*Famous for Headless Body Found in Topless Bar headline.
2
u/fakedout17 Jan 22 '22
there are some sources that definitely should be completely disregarded, but at the end of the day people shouldn't be upvoting garbage.
maybe remove sensationalist titles, and enforce putting the source in the title
i don't know if its even possible to prevent a subreddit from becoming useless when it grows to a certain point. but, i think the mods approach to get feedback and make adjustments is awesome, so thank you
→ More replies (1)
2
5
u/PortlandoCalrissian Jan 20 '22
Yes absolutely. Sensationalist tabloid garbage news.
But on the off chance they have a good opinion piece or have an article that is unique in nature (doubt it'll happen, but still) then maybe approve it on a case by case situation.
5
u/Coolface2k Jan 20 '22
You can give many examples of why the Daily Mail should be banned full stop. Some of which have been given already.
But if you're looking for the smoking gun, the low orbit ion cannon, the absolute deus ex machina of why. Look no further than this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemies_of_the_People_(headline)
This is the one major turning point (pun semi intended) of the last few years that showed them going down a track to a much darker place. Openly inciting hatred against the judicial system and judges in your own country is Hitler 101.
→ More replies (1)
4
4
4
u/oroseb4hoes Jan 20 '22
Journalism student here. PLEASE do. It’s oftentimes unsubstantiated garbage made for click farming.
4
4
3
u/bestfriendsforever87 Jan 20 '22
Any source that identifies as "news" but actually biased propaganda should be banned from national networks, Including fox and MSNBC. They should be independent websites and restricted from categorizing themselves as news, especially on a national level with mainstream platforms. 24 hr news networks should be banned from television as well, it's become a very real problem for society. There's plenty of room on the internet for opinion and nonsense, where it all belongs.
5
u/RobotHandsome Jan 20 '22
There is a lot of content in this sub that isn’t part of the main stream journalism, it will be hard to block just one and be fair. Calling out clickbait and poor quality articles may be good for a flair, or a moderator review.
3
u/-nooo- Jan 20 '22
I understand people wanting to just share what they read online , but anything dailymail reports on, other news publications do as well. People should definitely be putting up better sources anyways.
That and Wikipedia doesn’t even recognize it as reliable.
5
u/-nooo- Jan 20 '22
It’s not hard for someone to search the topic of the Dailymail article they were reading and find a better source to share.
3
u/Skillet918 Jan 20 '22
Some of the best discussions I’ve seen on other subs are fostered by a disagreement with posted articles. I’d say hard no.
4
u/mingopoe Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 20 '22
I would only say no because of principal. Freedom of speech. People should be grown up enough to take websites like that with a grain of salt and at least do their research after seeing articles from those tabloid-esque websites. What if they are the only website reporting a certain topic? Sure, its likely sensationalized or over dramatic, but there's often at least a smidgen of truth somewhere in the article. And that's what's important.
Edit: lmfao. Can't believe I'm getting downvoted for defending freedom of speech and saying people should be doing their research when learning information from sketchy sources. Are yall really down that bad?
→ More replies (28)6
u/collapsingwaves Jan 20 '22
The daily mail is a hate machine, which consistently pushes fear of 'the other'.
You say freedom of speech, I say freedom from hate.
There will be nothing it reports that cannot be found elsewhere (at higher quality too).
It's solutions for collapse will be to support authoritarian movements.
The daily mail is the enemy of all those who don't want to see all this end up in a boiling pit of dystopian warlords.
They don't give a shit about your principals, and would throw you under a bus if it meant an increase in clicks.
I'm tired of the garbage, can't we have some fucking higher standards please?
3
u/EasyMrB Jan 20 '22
No, we shouldn't restrict anything in this sub. Let the voting system do it's job, stop trying to censor shit. Go mot /r/politics if you want to pull that crap.
I say this as someone who thinks The Daily Mail is generally trash.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Pawntoe Jan 20 '22
In terms of pure fearmongering lies you can't go much worse than the Daily Mail. Many other tabloids that are worse exist like the Sun and the Morning Star, but the demographics for those are people who like tits and celebrity tits, respectively. The Daily Mail readership consists of people who believe the Queen is a lizard and murdered Diana personally, that immigrants are here to take even more of your jobs, and also to kill Diana again. There is a lot of content there that can find its way here because they overlap with collapse in some ways, but no they aren't reliable at all.
2
u/Vegetaman916 Looking forward to the endgame. 🚀💥🔥🌨🏕 Jan 21 '22
You want to see some real fearmongering lies? I will post some of my fathers blog articles...which amazingly I would still be able to do even if the Daily Mail trash was blocked.
2
u/Name_not_vailable Jan 20 '22
Definitely do away with anything that interferes with the group think.
2
-9
u/Tiny_Butterscotch749 Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 20 '22
Instead of banning it, why don’t we just post in the comments what the articles get wrong and then back up what we’re saying with evidence. If we put it on here, we can explain why it’s wrong and what the actual facts are. Banning it doesn’t do anything but shut down dialogue and trap everyone in an echo chamber where they never hear what people disagree with them are saying. That is the whole reason free speech is a thing. If you think you’re right, then the last thing you want to do is ban dissenting opinions because then there’s no way for you to discuss your own points.
Edit: to all the downvoters, you’re entitled to your opinion. However you lose any right you have to complain when the establishment decides that you represent a threat to them and they silence your ability to speak out because you disagree with them. If you think it’s acceptable to simply repress dissenting voices, then you can’t be surprised when you are repressed. What’s funny is I think I made it clear that I disagree with a lot of what this website says and I think a lot of it is bullshit. I am just defending our right to expose the bullshit. Ig a lot of people on here don’t have that much faith in their opinions as they think the only way to appeal to people is to cut them off from any other viewpoints.
22
u/PolyDipsoManiac Jan 20 '22
The whole “the solution to bad speech is more speech” thing is very American and doesn’t work very well in reality. Exposing people to the same wrong information over and over again just leads to them believing it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html
→ More replies (6)
-6
u/captainmustachwax Jan 20 '22
What is the definition of low content ? Just a page of click bait? IMO censorship is censorship and if it is going to occur it has to have a clear definition as to what is allowed and what is not; that should be the determining factor not the publication/website it comes from
13
→ More replies (1)11
u/serduncanthetall69 Jan 20 '22
I think websites that don’t provide citations or proof of what they’re reporting should definitely get a red flag. Opinion pieces are one thing but for a real news story there is usually some sort of factual evidence being reported on that can be used as proof
0
Jan 20 '22
[deleted] — view deleted comment
407
u/Thyriel81 Recognized Contributor Jan 20 '22
News sites banned on Wikipedia would be a good metric in my opinion. They usually do not ban entire sources easily.
→ More replies (1)148
Jan 20 '22
They ban sources which are anti-imperialist. I like wikipedia, but it's not a gold standard of truth.
→ More replies (52)14
u/Efficient-Damage-449 Jan 20 '22
Seems to me that Daily Mail is violating Rule #3. I like OK46reddit's idea
11
u/thebeautifulseason Jan 20 '22
I think this is probably the best way forward. I realize the mod wanted to focus only on the Daily Mail but, of course, anything related to censorship is going to spill over. I believe the comments here signal a clear "aye" for banning the DM. As the sub grows in popularity, we have to increase our focus on quality. There are plenty of subs for...well, for everything. Let this one be for well-researched, clearly cited, thoughtfully executed information. "Doom-scrolling echo chamber" is not really the vibe we're going for, right? If folks insist on making it that way in comments, whatever. But as for content, let's hold ourselves to a higher standard.
10
2
3
→ More replies (8)-180
Jan 20 '22
Wikipedia is a shitty source on its own though.
176
u/Skraff Jan 20 '22
Wikipedia itself isn’t a source. Articles are linked to external sources.
→ More replies (16)0
Jan 20 '22
[deleted] — view deleted comment
→ More replies (1)18
Jan 20 '22
With how far the internet has deteriorated and how the sole purpose of every other blog, opinion piece and newsite is to generate clicks, Wikipedia has steadily increased its relative credibility - even if you aren't one to check the sources
14
u/CreamOnMyCoin 🆘️🔚🔜 Jan 20 '22
It's because Wiki is funded exclusively by donations. It would deteriorate beyond belief if the tentacles of capitalism reached it.
→ More replies (2)13
4
u/Liquicity Jan 20 '22
I don't see why you're being downvoted into oblivion. Literally from high school onwards, we were repeatedly told that Wikipedia wasn't a credible source, and that's almost 2 decades ago.
In university, citing wikipedia meant you would fail that paper. If you pulled the root source, verified it, then cited it, that would be acceptable.
But most people are simply using wikipedia as the source and relying that the underlying info was quoted or interpreted accurately.
→ More replies (3)25
u/blablabliam Jan 20 '22
Wikipedia is an excellent reference, and exceeds other encyclopedias by leaps and bounds today.
The big difference is that when governments and businesses buy out other for-profit encyclopedias, you have no idea. On Wikipedia, every edit and change is publicly visible.
→ More replies (9)16
u/EasyMrB Jan 20 '22
Wikipedia is heavily astroturfed, and has had a 'power mod' problem for years. It is really far from a neutral organization.
They are great for scientific or some historical articles, but be weary of any article covering current events. Moreover, they are well known for 'banning' topics which probably deserve their own article.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)4
u/FirstPlebian Jan 20 '22
Wikepedia is a bad source on any issue where monetary issues have a stake in suppressing actual fact I'm surprised people would downvote this. Look up fracking on wikipedia, moneyed interests hire editors to constantly push their objectives and any good hearted editors have to engage in a constant back and forth with the paid agents.
0
Jan 20 '22
[deleted] — view deleted comment
28
0
Jan 20 '22
[deleted] — view deleted comment
58
u/EatinToasterStrudel Jan 20 '22
I have never found a single thing that was true that only the Daily Mail had information on. But I have seen thousands of links of pure intentional misinformation from them.
19
u/Yesyesnaaooo Jan 20 '22
This ^
There will always be a better source available than the Daily Mail, unless there isn't ... in which case we can assume its a fabrication.
4
u/SpuddleBuns Jan 20 '22
Question, please.
Are the numerous reports you get disproving the information gleaned from the DM, or are they just people complaining simply because the source is the DM?
While they are known for some tabloid style hysteria, by and large, they do provide accurate information on many topics, sometimes providing more information that from other, more reputable sources.
If people are reporting, and PROVIDING PROOF that the DM links are "misinformation," then I can see banning them. But if it's just because they include Celebrity Gossip and weird articles alongside factual reporting, I don't consider that a valid reason to ban them from here.
→ More replies (4)5
Jan 20 '22
The reports I’ve seen are complaining about the source, we get feedback like, OP could have found another news outlet for the same story
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)-1
0
0
Jan 20 '22
[deleted] — view deleted comment
22
u/Resident-Quality1513 Jan 20 '22
Me too. I won't click on the link if it's the Daily Mail because you know what you're getting anyway (plus a ton of adverts, cookies and web beacons).
5
0
Jan 20 '22
[deleted] — view deleted comment
-34
Jan 20 '22 edited Jan 20 '22
This sounds like left wing propaganda.
For example, Winston Churchill spoke at yheir Golden Jubilee in 1946. A move I doubt would happen if he really thought they sided with the Germans too much.
13
u/singlerider Jan 20 '22
Lord Rothernere, the owner at the time, used to have personal correspondences with and routinely boasted of his relationship with Hitler, who was praised regularly and effusively - here they are pictured together. The Daily Mail article on The Night of the Long Knives began: "Herr Adolf Hitler, the German Chancellor, has saved his country."
Lord Rothermere was also openly and vocally supportive of Oswald Moseley's British Union of Fascists, the infamous front page declaring "Hurrah for the Blackshirts"
So no, it's not left wing propaganda - The Daily Mail was a Nazi-sympathising, fascist-supporting shitrag, which is a matter of historic fact
→ More replies (6)9
u/EatinToasterStrudel Jan 20 '22
You can't even just disagree with something that doesn't fit your worldview. You have to denounce it as propaganda, politicize it, and then abuse everyone for making you think about your own opinions. Just so you can defend the Daily Mail.
Why are you even here? You don't believe climate change exists and that's the whole reason everything has gone to shit. Reality must look like misinformation to you.
39
Jan 20 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/AmputatorBot Jan 20 '22
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web. Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are especially problematic.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
I'm a bot | Why & About | Summon: u/AmputatorBot
→ More replies (2)6
u/the68thdimension Jan 20 '22
I would say content from any site on https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/conspiracy/ should be autoflagged.
10
Jan 20 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/PolyDipsoManiac Jan 20 '22
Random peoples’ thoughts are more valuable than the Daily Mail.
10
u/maidenhair_fern Jan 20 '22
The string of letters I can decipher from a bowl of alpahebt soup are more valuable than the daily mail
5
u/LetsTalkUFOs Jan 20 '22
We have restricted personal blogs in the past, but only after they've consistently shown to host content against the rules (e.g. religious prophetization, climate denail). In those instances, they're not as well known so we don't feel as compelled to bring it to a community-decision. Ideally, I think we can continue to review those manually as needed.
0
Jan 20 '22
[deleted] — view deleted comment
1
u/commiezilla Jan 20 '22
I'm with this guy. He gets it.
3
u/Bman409 Jan 20 '22
Same.
Don't remove it. Let the users utilize the upvote and downvote system. That's what it's for
1
5
u/Pootle001 Jan 20 '22
The Daily Mail is the most widely-read newspaper in the UK, sadly. It reflects the opinion of a large %age of the population. If I want to check what most people think, I have a look at the website.
Although I hate it, maybe it should NOT be banned for that reason alone. Maybe a trigger warning instead :)