6 ms·

The Yahoo brand has really positive associations for me, their company ethos always seems to have been about good design, sharing with the developer community,

The Yahoo brand has really positive associations for me, their company ethos always seems to have been about good design, sharing with the developer community, providing really useful services. The Daily Mail is a horrible company that will stoop to any level to earn a buck [1][2]. It seems like a terrible cultural fit and it would be a sad end to Yahoo. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11133950 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11133950 [2] http://www.themediablog.co.uk/the-media-blog/2013/01/daily-mail-turns-the-creepiness-up-a-notch.html http://www.themediablog.co.uk/the-media-blog/2013/01/daily-m...

chillydawg 11y ago
Yahoo was until just recently pursuing a ridiculously blatant tax evasion strategy to sell off their one worthwhile asset (their stake in alibaba). I'd suggest they are exactly as evil as the Daily Mail Group, just they have better PR.
- tim333 11y ago
  Tax avoidance - they were sticking to the legal stuff.
  - chillydawg 11y ago
    It was borderline and now banned.
mytrile 11y ago
And this is the same Yahoo that banned remote work and forced some many people to leave ?
alex_hitchins 11y ago
Surely this is just to raise their stock price? This can't be real, can it? I hope not, because the Daily Mail are fairly disgusting.
annnnd 11y ago
Oracle buying Sun all over again?
- gist 11y ago
  And Sun buying Cobalt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_Qube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_Qube
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Most of Yahoo! will be haemorrhaging money. If it drags the Daily Mail down with it, not everyone will be upset about that. See also Rupert Murdoch and Myspace. And possibly also TimeWarner and AOL. These giant mergers never seem to work, and I can't even begin to imagine how Yahoo's culture would be any kind of fit at all for the DM's.
bb101 11y ago
Daily Mail may have questionable journalism, but when a large public-interest story breaks, it is often the first to have large pictures of the story. As they say, a picture can be worth a thousand words. They also seem to be the first to cover category-B news, i.e. a light plane crash in some distant country. As long as there are photos, the Daily Mail will have it on their front page today, the Telegraph tomorrow, and the BBC perhaps on the third day.
- rmc 11y ago
  When a large public-interest story breaks, they're also not above outright lying and making it up. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/09/pcc-dailymail http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/09/pcc-...
  - Loque 11y ago
    anything for that money...
  - tim333 11y ago
    They had the wrong Knox court verdict up for 90 seconds before correcting it. Seems more like a cock up than outright lying in that case.
    - rmc 11y ago
      There's no problem with newspapers writing a stock pieces for either eventuality, and yes, sometimes someone will accidentally press the wrong button, and the wrong version might go up for a bit. But the wrong story they put up wasn't a generic piece. It has specific claims about specific actions, which obviously didn't happen. They made claims about how the defendent acted upon hearing the judgement (Knox "sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears"), it had quotes from Italian prison officers, etc. It was clearly an outright fabrication. They wrote, in detail, about Knox' reaction to the verdict, before the vedict was handed down. And we only know they made it up because they cocked up.
- 11y ago
darkclarity 11y ago
The Daily Mail has a bad reputation with the Twitterring classes, but like every other UK newspaper they cater for their own audiences - it just so happens that you probably aren't in that particular group. If Yahoo are in trouble then they need leadership to find an audience (and adjust their services appropriately). What better way than to rely on the owner of one of the most successful news outlets? Either that, or it slowly disappears.
- dingaling 11y ago
  > but like every other UK newspaper they cater for their own audience And their audience is pretty enormous. Mail Online has well over 250 million unique visitors per month, or half-a-Wikipedia and on-par with the sum of all of Yahoo's properties. It's the most-visited English-language news site in the World. Their London-orientated Metro Online adds another 40 million per month.
  - alex_hitchins 11y ago
    Those stats are incredible. I suspect they are accurate given the sort of puff and nonsense they peddle on there. I still don't think being very successfull running a gossip site covers all of what running Yahoo! requires.
- arethuza 11y ago
  Are they really that successful? Total Mail Online revenue appears to be under £100m (although growing rapidly): http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/28/daily-mail-websites-ad-revenues-surge-as-paper-prepares-for-price-hike http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/28/daily-mail-webs...
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Now look at the figures for any other UK newspaper.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    They're the second-biggest newspaper in the UK.
seivan 11y ago
I always wonder why the type of accusation against DailyMail are never to be seen when it's about e.g The Guardian? Do people actually believe there is a distinction in quality between all these tabloids? As if Guardian would be of higher quality than Daily Mail? That can't be it? For every trash article you point out on the DM one could find the same from Guardian.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- soundwave106 11y ago
  Snapshot: The current top headline at the Guardian's UK website concerns David Cameron facing MPs over his father's offshore bank account (exposed in the Panama Papers leak). The current top news headline at the Daily Mail is something about Kate Middleton's $4200 dress. This is pretty typical. I don't consider the Guardian the best journalism has to offer. But the Daily Mail is way more "tabloid-lite", with a huge amount of gossip and celebrity culture. The fluffy stories make the Daily Mail far closer to something like a full-on tabloid (like The Sun etc.) to me. It's not just editorial stance we are talking about.

chillydawg 11y ago

Yahoo was until just recently pursuing a ridiculously blatant tax evasion strategy to sell off their one worthwhile asset (their stake in alibaba). I'd suggest they are exactly as evil as the Daily Mail Group, just they have better PR.

tim333 11y ago
Tax avoidance - they were sticking to the legal stuff.
- chillydawg 11y ago
  It was borderline and now banned.

mytrile 11y ago

And this is the same Yahoo that banned remote work and forced some many people to leave ?

alex_hitchins 11y ago

Surely this is just to raise their stock price? This can't be real, can it? I hope not, because the Daily Mail are fairly disgusting.

annnnd 11y ago

Oracle buying Sun all over again?

gist 11y ago
And Sun buying Cobalt? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_Qube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_Qube

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

Most of Yahoo! will be haemorrhaging money. If it drags the Daily Mail down with it, not everyone will be upset about that. See also Rupert Murdoch and Myspace. And possibly also TimeWarner and AOL. These giant mergers never seem to work, and I can't even begin to imagine how Yahoo's culture would be any kind of fit at all for the DM's.

bb101 11y ago

Daily Mail may have questionable journalism, but when a large public-interest story breaks, it is often the first to have large pictures of the story. As they say, a picture can be worth a thousand words. They also seem to be the first to cover category-B news, i.e. a light plane crash in some distant country. As long as there are photos, the Daily Mail will have it on their front page today, the Telegraph tomorrow, and the BBC perhaps on the third day.

rmc 11y ago
When a large public-interest story breaks, they're also not above outright lying and making it up. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/09/pcc-dailymail http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/09/pcc-...
- Loque 11y ago
  anything for that money...
- tim333 11y ago
  They had the wrong Knox court verdict up for 90 seconds before correcting it. Seems more like a cock up than outright lying in that case.
  - rmc 11y ago
    There's no problem with newspapers writing a stock pieces for either eventuality, and yes, sometimes someone will accidentally press the wrong button, and the wrong version might go up for a bit. But the wrong story they put up wasn't a generic piece. It has specific claims about specific actions, which obviously didn't happen. They made claims about how the defendent acted upon hearing the judgement (Knox "sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears"), it had quotes from Italian prison officers, etc. It was clearly an outright fabrication. They wrote, in detail, about Knox' reaction to the verdict, before the vedict was handed down. And we only know they made it up because they cocked up.
11y ago

darkclarity 11y ago

The Daily Mail has a bad reputation with the Twitterring classes, but like every other UK newspaper they cater for their own audiences - it just so happens that you probably aren't in that particular group. If Yahoo are in trouble then they need leadership to find an audience (and adjust their services appropriately). What better way than to rely on the owner of one of the most successful news outlets? Either that, or it slowly disappears.

dingaling 11y ago
> but like every other UK newspaper they cater for their own audience And their audience is pretty enormous. Mail Online has well over 250 million unique visitors per month, or half-a-Wikipedia and on-par with the sum of all of Yahoo's properties. It's the most-visited English-language news site in the World. Their London-orientated Metro Online adds another 40 million per month.
- alex_hitchins 11y ago
  Those stats are incredible. I suspect they are accurate given the sort of puff and nonsense they peddle on there. I still don't think being very successfull running a gossip site covers all of what running Yahoo! requires.
arethuza 11y ago
Are they really that successful? Total Mail Online revenue appears to be under £100m (although growing rapidly): http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/28/daily-mail-websites-ad-revenues-surge-as-paper-prepares-for-price-hike http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/28/daily-mail-webs...
- DanBC 11y ago
  Now look at the figures for any other UK newspaper.
- pjc50 11y ago
  They're the second-biggest newspaper in the UK.

seivan 11y ago

I always wonder why the type of accusation against DailyMail are never to be seen when it's about e.g The Guardian? Do people actually believe there is a distinction in quality between all these tabloids? As if Guardian would be of higher quality than Daily Mail? That can't be it? For every trash article you point out on the DM one could find the same from Guardian.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
soundwave106 11y ago
Snapshot: The current top headline at the Guardian's UK website concerns David Cameron facing MPs over his father's offshore bank account (exposed in the Panama Papers leak). The current top news headline at the Daily Mail is something about Kate Middleton's $4200 dress. This is pretty typical. I don't consider the Guardian the best journalism has to offer. But the Daily Mail is way more "tabloid-lite", with a huge amount of gossip and celebrity culture. The fluffy stories make the Daily Mail far closer to something like a full-on tabloid (like The Sun etc.) to me. It's not just editorial stance we are talking about.