3 ms·

I see a lot of people citing their personal dislike of the site as a reason to wipe it from polite society. Why? What test did it fail and where is the evidence

I see a lot of people citing their personal dislike of the site as a reason to wipe it from polite society. Why? What test did it fail and where is the evidence? Can you apply that test evenly to other websites? Am I the only one here that sees these types of moves as a problem and doesn’t dismiss them purely because of my own personal attitudes toward the content?

mft_ 7y ago
Well, we don't know why it happened. If it's pure censorship, sure, that's a bad thing. But if it's just that Google is updating its algorithm to pay less attention to sites which are heavily optimised/click-bait/sensationalist... that's not so bad.
iamnothere 7y ago
I've finally come to the understanding that when times get tough, people are all for naked power grabs that support "their side", regardless of the broader consequences. You could see it as a flaw in humanity, but I think it's an adaptive trait, ensuring that your tribe secures adequate resources and all that. The real flaw is how we're unable to escape these sorts of evolutionary pressures and replace them with cooperative behavior across tribal boundaries. (In my opinion, this is what will lead us into devastating global resource wars when climate change and peak oil really come home to roost.)
viraptor 7y ago
> What test did it fail and where is the evidence? You'll find the answers here https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/statistics-show-that-daily-mail-was-by-far-the-most-unreliable-uk-paper-in-2017/ https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/statisti... with a follow-up from this year in https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/ https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-ma... This includes great quotes like: > The paper reported in its front page story that an Iraqi man “caught red-handed with a bomb” had been awarded £33,000 in compensation “because our soldiers kept him in custody for too long”. In fact, the man in question was found not guilty and the reason he was awarded compensation was for unlawful and degrading treatment while in custody (he was beaten by guards) as well as unlawful detention.

mft_ 7y ago

Well, we don't know why it happened. If it's pure censorship, sure, that's a bad thing. But if it's just that Google is updating its algorithm to pay less attention to sites which are heavily optimised/click-bait/sensationalist... that's not so bad.

iamnothere 7y ago

I've finally come to the understanding that when times get tough, people are all for naked power grabs that support "their side", regardless of the broader consequences. You could see it as a flaw in humanity, but I think it's an adaptive trait, ensuring that your tribe secures adequate resources and all that. The real flaw is how we're unable to escape these sorts of evolutionary pressures and replace them with cooperative behavior across tribal boundaries. (In my opinion, this is what will lead us into devastating global resource wars when climate change and peak oil really come home to roost.)

viraptor 7y ago

> What test did it fail and where is the evidence? You'll find the answers here https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/statistics-show-that-daily-mail-was-by-far-the-most-unreliable-uk-paper-in-2017/ https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/statisti... with a follow-up from this year in https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-mail-tops-list-of-ipso-offenders-for-third-year-running/ https://tabloidcorrections.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/daily-ma... This includes great quotes like: > The paper reported in its front page story that an Iraqi man “caught red-handed with a bomb” had been awarded £33,000 in compensation “because our soldiers kept him in custody for too long”. In fact, the man in question was found not guilty and the reason he was awarded compensation was for unlawful and degrading treatment while in custody (he was beaten by guards) as well as unlawful detention.