5 ms·

Daily Mail can fuck themselves. They published an article a complaint I filed with the Oklahoma coroners office in 2012 because it was taking 12+ months to get

Daily Mail can fuck themselves. They published an article a complaint I filed with the Oklahoma coroners office in 2012 because it was taking 12+ months to get results when my 5yo son died. They also spun it as parents in "outrage" to get clicks and refuse to take the article down even now that there is no way it is producing revenue for them.

CountDrewku 5y ago
Yeah that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. What Google is doing has larger implications than your personal vendetta against Daily Mail.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- steve918 5y ago
  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
- sunshinekitty 5y ago
  Relevant in that the Daily Mail is regularly regarded as bad journalism, as other comments also point out.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    According to who? I don't want my search results based on what you or anyone else thinks. I think CNN is horrible journalism, propaganda, they've been caught lying consistently, and their headlines are full of sensationalist bullshit but I can guarantee you Google won't touch their search results. I'll make my own decision on whether it's bad. I do not want it filtered out before I even get to make that decision. This desire to stop people from seeing stuff you dislike is really weird and reeks of authoritarianism. The option for you is to not click on anything from DM. Except you then go on and force your beliefs on everyone else by making it so they don't get the option to choose and that just means you want to control what they think and believe. I find that attitude abhorrent. The irony is that people doing these are supposedly so anti right wing and yet they do exactly what the Republicans were doing with censorship in the 90s.
    - permo-w 5y ago
      have you tried the mail’s mobile site? it is borderline unusable. the amp is even worse. perhaps cnn has competent web designers
    - tqi 5y ago
      ...so use a different search platform? Your rationale seems to boil down to "I hate when other people impose their values on me, I'd much prefer to impose my values on them"
- Emma_Goldman 5y ago
  It is a personal testament to what most people familiar with the paper know, that it is spiteful pabulum. It is relevant in that if Google ranks search-items according to a criterion of quality, one would expect the Daily Mail to fall lower than other news sites covering the same story. Also, it's more than a little obnoxious to hand-wave an anecdote about personal loss away like this.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    "Also, it's more than a little obnoxious to hand-wave an anecdote about personal loss away like this." Good. It's anecdotal I do not care. Basing your decisions on anecdotal emotional evidence from some random poster on the internet is pure idiocy.
    - permo-w 5y ago
      Perhaps take a step back? If someone told you this story about their dead 5 year old in person, would you be so abrasive? I suspect if you would, rightly or wrongly, you’d probably be faced with violence You aren’t being clever by dismissing people’s feelings and stories. Besides, give it some thought, are you being so rude based on emotions? Would you be replying like this if there weren’t politics involved? If it was some other company the Mail were attacking?
      - CountDrewku 5y ago
        Yes because you don't get to use your personal emotional reasons to decide what I get to see. That's the asshole move, pointing it out is not. Lay out the facts as to why it's good/bad or don't say anything at all. Some personal story about how it made you feel bad is irrelevant and actually harmful to making an informed decision. Toddlers use emotional reasoning, be an adult.
        permo-w 5y ago
        listen, I agree with you on a certain level. I hate news reports and docs where they try to jerk my emotions with sad music and sob stories but this is not that. this is a presumably real person telling a story that’s very sensitive to them. they’re not trying to trick you, or manipulate you. they’re just giving an example of how they were treated by the daily mail you’re acting like a petulant autistic child everyone - including you - uses emotional reasoning. you will learn this at some point. even if you don’t want people to be emotional, they are. the human world is emotional, and trying to navigate it while being a dick to anyone who shows emotions will serve you extremely poorly finally your rude tone betrays your hypocrisy. you’re emotionally involved in this, and you’re not acting rationally because of it
cheeze 5y ago
Sorry for your loss, hope you're in a better place since then. No parent should ever have to go through that. May your son rest in peace.

CountDrewku 5y ago

Yeah that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. What Google is doing has larger implications than your personal vendetta against Daily Mail.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
steve918 5y ago
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
sunshinekitty 5y ago
Relevant in that the Daily Mail is regularly regarded as bad journalism, as other comments also point out.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  According to who? I don't want my search results based on what you or anyone else thinks. I think CNN is horrible journalism, propaganda, they've been caught lying consistently, and their headlines are full of sensationalist bullshit but I can guarantee you Google won't touch their search results. I'll make my own decision on whether it's bad. I do not want it filtered out before I even get to make that decision. This desire to stop people from seeing stuff you dislike is really weird and reeks of authoritarianism. The option for you is to not click on anything from DM. Except you then go on and force your beliefs on everyone else by making it so they don't get the option to choose and that just means you want to control what they think and believe. I find that attitude abhorrent. The irony is that people doing these are supposedly so anti right wing and yet they do exactly what the Republicans were doing with censorship in the 90s.
  - permo-w 5y ago
    have you tried the mail’s mobile site? it is borderline unusable. the amp is even worse. perhaps cnn has competent web designers
  - tqi 5y ago
    ...so use a different search platform? Your rationale seems to boil down to "I hate when other people impose their values on me, I'd much prefer to impose my values on them"
Emma_Goldman 5y ago
It is a personal testament to what most people familiar with the paper know, that it is spiteful pabulum. It is relevant in that if Google ranks search-items according to a criterion of quality, one would expect the Daily Mail to fall lower than other news sites covering the same story. Also, it's more than a little obnoxious to hand-wave an anecdote about personal loss away like this.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  "Also, it's more than a little obnoxious to hand-wave an anecdote about personal loss away like this." Good. It's anecdotal I do not care. Basing your decisions on anecdotal emotional evidence from some random poster on the internet is pure idiocy.
  - permo-w 5y ago
    Perhaps take a step back? If someone told you this story about their dead 5 year old in person, would you be so abrasive? I suspect if you would, rightly or wrongly, you’d probably be faced with violence You aren’t being clever by dismissing people’s feelings and stories. Besides, give it some thought, are you being so rude based on emotions? Would you be replying like this if there weren’t politics involved? If it was some other company the Mail were attacking?
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      Yes because you don't get to use your personal emotional reasons to decide what I get to see. That's the asshole move, pointing it out is not. Lay out the facts as to why it's good/bad or don't say anything at all. Some personal story about how it made you feel bad is irrelevant and actually harmful to making an informed decision. Toddlers use emotional reasoning, be an adult.
      - permo-w 5y ago
        listen, I agree with you on a certain level. I hate news reports and docs where they try to jerk my emotions with sad music and sob stories but this is not that. this is a presumably real person telling a story that’s very sensitive to them. they’re not trying to trick you, or manipulate you. they’re just giving an example of how they were treated by the daily mail you’re acting like a petulant autistic child everyone - including you - uses emotional reasoning. you will learn this at some point. even if you don’t want people to be emotional, they are. the human world is emotional, and trying to navigate it while being a dick to anyone who shows emotions will serve you extremely poorly finally your rude tone betrays your hypocrisy. you’re emotionally involved in this, and you’re not acting rationally because of it

cheeze 5y ago

Sorry for your loss, hope you're in a better place since then. No parent should ever have to go through that. May your son rest in peace.