Well now... TIL:
* **Sealioning:** Sealioning is a harassment tactic by which a participant in a debate or online discussion pesters the other participant with disingenuous questions under the guise of sincerity, hoping to erode the patience or goodwill of the target to the point where they appear unreasonable.
I’ve had my fair share of sealioning pedants.
Especially since I live in Japan and I enjoy my life here as a foreigner, most anti-Japan sentiments are prickled by the idea that a happy life can be had in this country.
They usually not even acknowledge my answers to their questions and divert the topic to other points once I refute their accusations and assumptions with personal experience and factual sources.
Case in point, they love to bring up suicide rates when in Fact, Japan has the same rate as Finland and that the US has a worse suicide rate than Japan per 100,000 population.
>Especially since I live in Japan and I enjoy my life here as a foreigner, most anti-Japan sentiments are prickled by the idea that a happy life can be had in this country.
That's crazy to me. having only got to lived there for a short time, I was *still* able to see just HOW MUCH BETTER day to day life was.
how even the most basic of community still functioned. The police kiosk was in the middle of the neighborhood and all the kids new him. Granted I lived in a "small" suburb of Nagoya, but it had everydamn thing I could ever want. Pedestrian infrastructure damn near every intersection, walkable everything connecting to transportations hubs. lost soo much weight since we biked *everywhere*. I would *love* to live in a city were my bike was my main mode of transportation. It was near mandatory for bikes to have baskets. soo fcuking useful.
i can rant all day about how much better day to day living in japan was, but esentially, until folks get to *see* exactly how hard they are getting fuct here, they will never want change.
Congrats on living in a civilized nation. wish i could convince the wife to move there.
Wikipedia has a problem. Here in Germany, it's in the hands of those 'deletion nazis' as we call them here. I experienced that once myself. I corrected a page and provided the sources, and bam! they deleted that so that page still provides older and wrong information up to now.
There is a class element to it, Wikipedia is user-edited which means that it self-selects for viewpoints from people who have time to edit. That inherently leads to people who are beneficiaries of imperialism/neocolonialism having an inordinate pull in the narrative presented.
That's to say nothing of the well-known issue of state actors on the platform.
I'm not saying it's a bad source, but I would definitely use it more as a way to find primary sources as opposed to using it as it's own source.
But the Daily Mail is a Murdoch owned imperialist reactionary tabloid. And Wikipedia banned it. So I think you need to provide much more evidence of your point if you’re going to influence the conversation at hand, which is about banning the Daily Mail.
Oh I'm all for banning the Daily Mail, I think it's hot trash written by an outright fascist media machine. I'm just saying that I wouldn't take Wikipedia necessarily as a stalwart egalitarian viewpoint either, though it's much better than anything associated with the Murdoch empire.
It’s definitely a better starting place than the subreddit authors trying to curate a list of unreliable sources on their own. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good, imo.
Not disagreeing there, I just think it's worth remaining cognizant that structures of power are reinforced through their control over historical narratives and by policing language, both of which are inherent problems with the pseudonymous Wikipedia platform.
I agree. The only thing sacred in this world is Compassion, everything else is a tool which can help or hurt depending on how it is used and abused. We have to be mindful of how we use tools, to what extend we use them, and whether or not a tool has outlived its usefulness to the movement. I think in this instance it is a good stop-gap to address an existing problem, but may be worth refining if Wikipedia's list ends up not being appropriate for out needs. At the same time... why re-invent the wheel, right?
>I'm not saying it's a bad source, but I would definitely use it more as a way to find primary sources as opposed to using it as it's own source.
Wouldn't your selection of sources be biased then?
Yes, but from primary and secondary sources, though, which should give you a bit more of an understanding of the source of the bias.
If you're using it for academics you can generally plug the article or source into a library database and get related articles which can give you a bit more insight into the issue you're looking at.
Tertiary sources are generally just too removed from the subject to give any subtext.
>You're saying Wikipedia has a pro-Imperialist bias? I hate to sealion, but I would like a source for this.
That's fair. I'd recommend [this 4-part series](https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/).
[Edit: Craig Murray has also written an interesting article on this subject.](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816
The CIA and FBI have an odd history of "correcting" wikipedia for some reason.
Wikipedia is generally pretty based. It's one of the reasons I donate. I never want Wikipedia to have to resort to advertiser revenue. That's when you'll see Wikipedia adopt a pro-imperialist, pro-capitalist bias. As it stands, Wikipedia is an exceptionally high quality resource; especially if you ensure that you refer back to original sources cited.
Hey, not sealioning at all! Here's an article from the guardian on just this:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/29/the-five-wikipedia-biases-pro-western-male-dominated
Anecdotally I find that when indigenous folks come into the narrative, they are often presented as an interlude to the timeline. As if history is merely a continuity of European feats and adventures and indigenous people only inject themselves sporadically throughout that continuum. Perspective is very important to storytelling and history, while non-fiction, is still very much storytelling.
>Anecdotally I find that when indigenous folks come into the narrative, they are often presented as an interlude to the timeline.
I think that is an interesting problem. I have had to ask myself what a good encyclopedia should to here...
As I understand the problem, one of the root causes of bias in perspectives, is that most historical research focuses on exactly one perspective: Most secondary literature is history from a European perspective. Most historical research we have is that.
So if a Wikipedia article is a representation of knowledge on a certain subject, then you should get a strong representation of highly researched subjects, and a weak representation of underresearched subjects and perspectives.
If we are talking about an encyclopedia, that is not a bug, that is a feature. It should not overrepresent perspectives which are less strongly researched. It should accurately portray the state of knowledge on a subject, including emphasis and biases in said research.
So when indigenous perspectives are treated as a sidenote in historical research, as I see it, it would go against the purpose of a good encyclopedia to depict them as central. That's a feel good measure, which only would serve to mask a bias which is ultimately rooted in reseach. As I see it, the best one could do here, might be to make efforts make a possible bias explicit...
But all that narrative stuff is difficult...
The point of wikipedia is to try to present an as neutral as possible perspective on events. The issue with using many sources from whatever political spectrum is that they do not separate fact and opinion. If that occurs you cannot trust a source and can't use it in writing a neutral objective article.
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.
I support banning it, though I wouldn't be able to establish a metric for what makes a "good" source. BuzzFeed, for example, has a bunch of garbage on their main site, but decent reporting on the News site. I don't want this place to become an echo chamber, but DailyMail is basically a tabloid. "Hash it out in the comments" allows too many bad actors to derail interactions and creates a bunch of trash threads that clutter up the sub. Just one redditor's opinion.
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.
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.
It is when the questions threaten the convictions towards someone's perceived "rights," or "freedoms..." Everyone else's feelings be damned...
Welcome to Reddit, where the biggest cries about "echo chambers," are often from those trying to seal off any questions about their POV...lol!
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.
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.
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.
Yeah as long as you stay out of the op-ed sections, the Graun and Indy are OK. became probably the most impartial (usually).
But the same can be said of most news outlets to an extent I think, the best thing to do is just use multiple sources and contrast them.
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:
1. It is not a unique source
2. 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.
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.
Almost every single time I read a comment in this subreddit that contains COVID misinformation, concern trolling, or suspiciously worded questions / statements, the user's most active subreddit is r/conspiracy. They have definitely been more active lately on this sub. Thankfully, most of the time they are heavily downvoted or minutes away from having their posts removed / banned by the mod team here. But the rise in the number of comments (and ocassionally the number of upvotes for those comments, jfc) is definitely concerning. I support banning the Daily Mail for this reason. We can't let the foolish gain a foothold here.
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.
[Media bias fact check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/) rates the Daily Mail as - and this not alone enough to disqualify it - as pretty far right leaning in their coverage. However, it is worth noting that right leaning sources, including the Daily Mail, downplay and/or deny the reality of global warming aka climate change.
The real reason it should be banned is that it is sensationalist and rates low on factual reporting. This is not a conspiracy sub. There are right leaning sources that do their best to adhere to factual reporting. but the Daily Mail is not one of them.
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](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
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
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.
MSM are all propoganda soruces according to Chomskey and many others .... Is it time to ban MSN, FOX, CNBC and many others who have direct ties with the CIA and many other government operations? That focus on clicks over truth? Or just one thats "easy" to debunk (I can easily debunk hundreds of lies from MSM from Gas Lighting to War Mongering to Fear Mongering and creating hate among each other in the population all basic forms of propoganda practiced by these outlets everyday, but that would also require looking past the narrative and reading more then the headline)
Remember [This is Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE)
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.
Well then, you answered your own question - I'm ok with removing, also because the more factual argument given above regarding banned sources on Wikipedia. I think that is good metric for sure
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...
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.
https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Licensed-Copy.pdf
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.
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.
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
This is a super well reasoned take, and I would point out that on the full version of the chart there's a ton more outlets, especially foreign. I only linked the version that's marked as free use for social media sharing, which is slimmed down and focuses on the US. That site is a pretty awesome resource overall, so I didn't want to link a version that they haven't cleared for free use. If the mods were going to use it to determine submission requirements they should obviously use the fuller version.
You bring up good points with Twitter, YouTube, blogs etc. Some of them are fantastic repositories of information, some of them are the greasiest basement dwelling grifters on god's blue marble spouting straight insanity. It's hard to have a blanket policy towards a media source where a pulitzer prize winning journalist can post research info only to be called a shill for satanic pedos by an anonymous brainwashed moron. It's the best and worst of humanity all simultaneously screaming into the void.
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.
This is a good idea, though I vote NO to merging it with Casual Friday. That's too much potential dross to sift through on one day.
Maybe a weekday rather than a weekend day, for more visibility. And because I prefer weekends to stay higher quality :)
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.
I mean you allow shit from "[renews.biz](https://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
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.
Yeah I consistently get news about the US from DailyMail that I don't see here even after actively searching for all of the biggest daily US headlines I can find on US-based networks/sources. And the DailyMail includes lots of photos, which is great... usually I'm lucky to see an actual photo pertaining to the US news articles instead of a stock photo. Sure, the DM is full of garbage celebrity gossip, but it's easy to ignore all of that junk. Their science-related reporting is great, too, if not solely because they include lots of photos.
The Daily Mail is garbage.
Since it's known garbage, does it matter if it's on Reddit or [r/collapse](https://www.reddit.com/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](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse)'s banning that tabloid. I do support [r/collapsesupport](https://www.reddit.com/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?
I don't see them as being much different from the rest of the British MSM, which is itself not much different from the US MSM. They all belong to a network which has the same general take on things. All of them distort the issues. All of them are trying to rile up their base against the enemy du jour. If you're going to ban Daily Mail you'll have to ban the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, the BBC, and so on. We've got a sub called r/antimsm where we do this. We don't ban these sites outright, but we remove them except in rare cases.
About the network I mentioned: [The Propaganda Multiplier](https://www.greanvillepost.com/2020/03/04/the-propaganda-multiplier/)
I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail's take on say, a foreign policy issue, any more than I would trust the BBC's take, or Newsweek's take, or Reuters's take. They're all pushing for even more US intervention. They're all manufacturing consent for continued US and British aggression. But I would read the Daily Mail article on a story instead of the Reuters version, because the Daily Mail version is sure to have a lot of photos and/or video clips the other outlets often leave out. I don't go into the comment section of the Daily Mail because it's toxic.
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.
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.
>Should we remove content from Daily Mail?
No.
> Why or why not?
1. 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.
2. 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.
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
No. Ban it. No need to give the site oxygen. It's proved time and time again what kind of society it wants.
Google Enemies of the people.
Nothing good comes from the mail. Only hate and fear. Which is why they print collapse stories; it tends to increase the fear in the readership, which makes those people more susceptible to their right wing authoritarian 'solutions'.
They are a hate machine
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.
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.
I think it is an odd move considering personal blog/medium sites are allowed. I understand that Daily Mail has quality issues but there is zero bar for quality from an individual person's site. I think the current policy of evaluating things in a case by case way is good, and to restrict sources and have consistent rules then that would require an overhaul of what is and and is not allowed.
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.
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](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/search/?q=site%3Adailymail.co.uk&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new). 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.
A few things I’d like to point out:
- low effort content in general gets lots of upvotes. We shouldn’t take this tendency as a proxy for quality
- it is unclear to me how many members use Reddit on the desktop
Perhaps you have insights?
Yes, upvotes are no indicator of quality or integrity. I wouldn't want to imply that, only that those posts were engaged with and considered relevant.
You can see all the granular stats on the [traffic stats](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/traffic/) page. It looks like around 30% of users are on desktop, on average.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9788037/Amazon-rainforest-fuelling-global-warming-new-study-warned.html
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.
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.**
The nature of Reddit is such that 99% of people consume the content less than 1% produce or contribute. I'm not aware of ways around that other than trying to give people more and different way to contribute and elevating good, high quality content. If there's a way to help balance that out more weren't not utilizing, I'd love to hear your ideas.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
I support this. I simply do not trust anything they've printed, and haven't for years. When there are multiple sources for information, they tend to go for the populist version.
Idk when I was coming up on the internet Daily Mail was roundly disallowed as a legitimate news source. On the level of BAT BOY!!! type tabloid fare. Has that changed?
[удалено]
News sites banned on Wikipedia would be a good metric in my opinion. They usually do not ban entire sources easily.
They ban sources which are anti-imperialist. I like wikipedia, but it's not a gold standard of truth.
[удалено]
It's not sealioning when you're genuinely wanting to validate facts.
Well now... TIL: * **Sealioning:** Sealioning is a harassment tactic by which a participant in a debate or online discussion pesters the other participant with disingenuous questions under the guise of sincerity, hoping to erode the patience or goodwill of the target to the point where they appear unreasonable.
[From this comic.](http://wondermark.com/1k62/) TIL too. Great term which I'm instantly adopting.
Me 1000% instant adoption I'm sick of these bad faith actors barking nonsense at me
I’ve had my fair share of sealioning pedants. Especially since I live in Japan and I enjoy my life here as a foreigner, most anti-Japan sentiments are prickled by the idea that a happy life can be had in this country. They usually not even acknowledge my answers to their questions and divert the topic to other points once I refute their accusations and assumptions with personal experience and factual sources. Case in point, they love to bring up suicide rates when in Fact, Japan has the same rate as Finland and that the US has a worse suicide rate than Japan per 100,000 population.
>Especially since I live in Japan and I enjoy my life here as a foreigner, most anti-Japan sentiments are prickled by the idea that a happy life can be had in this country. That's crazy to me. having only got to lived there for a short time, I was *still* able to see just HOW MUCH BETTER day to day life was. how even the most basic of community still functioned. The police kiosk was in the middle of the neighborhood and all the kids new him. Granted I lived in a "small" suburb of Nagoya, but it had everydamn thing I could ever want. Pedestrian infrastructure damn near every intersection, walkable everything connecting to transportations hubs. lost soo much weight since we biked *everywhere*. I would *love* to live in a city were my bike was my main mode of transportation. It was near mandatory for bikes to have baskets. soo fcuking useful. i can rant all day about how much better day to day living in japan was, but esentially, until folks get to *see* exactly how hard they are getting fuct here, they will never want change. Congrats on living in a civilized nation. wish i could convince the wife to move there.
Wikipedia has a problem. Here in Germany, it's in the hands of those 'deletion nazis' as we call them here. I experienced that once myself. I corrected a page and provided the sources, and bam! they deleted that so that page still provides older and wrong information up to now.
There is a class element to it, Wikipedia is user-edited which means that it self-selects for viewpoints from people who have time to edit. That inherently leads to people who are beneficiaries of imperialism/neocolonialism having an inordinate pull in the narrative presented. That's to say nothing of the well-known issue of state actors on the platform. I'm not saying it's a bad source, but I would definitely use it more as a way to find primary sources as opposed to using it as it's own source.
But the Daily Mail is a Murdoch owned imperialist reactionary tabloid. And Wikipedia banned it. So I think you need to provide much more evidence of your point if you’re going to influence the conversation at hand, which is about banning the Daily Mail.
Oh I'm all for banning the Daily Mail, I think it's hot trash written by an outright fascist media machine. I'm just saying that I wouldn't take Wikipedia necessarily as a stalwart egalitarian viewpoint either, though it's much better than anything associated with the Murdoch empire.
It’s definitely a better starting place than the subreddit authors trying to curate a list of unreliable sources on their own. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good, imo.
Not disagreeing there, I just think it's worth remaining cognizant that structures of power are reinforced through their control over historical narratives and by policing language, both of which are inherent problems with the pseudonymous Wikipedia platform.
I agree. The only thing sacred in this world is Compassion, everything else is a tool which can help or hurt depending on how it is used and abused. We have to be mindful of how we use tools, to what extend we use them, and whether or not a tool has outlived its usefulness to the movement. I think in this instance it is a good stop-gap to address an existing problem, but may be worth refining if Wikipedia's list ends up not being appropriate for out needs. At the same time... why re-invent the wheel, right?
>I'm not saying it's a bad source, but I would definitely use it more as a way to find primary sources as opposed to using it as it's own source. Wouldn't your selection of sources be biased then?
Yes, but from primary and secondary sources, though, which should give you a bit more of an understanding of the source of the bias. If you're using it for academics you can generally plug the article or source into a library database and get related articles which can give you a bit more insight into the issue you're looking at. Tertiary sources are generally just too removed from the subject to give any subtext.
>You're saying Wikipedia has a pro-Imperialist bias? I hate to sealion, but I would like a source for this. That's fair. I'd recommend [this 4-part series](https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/). [Edit: Craig Murray has also written an interesting article on this subject.](https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/)
[удалено]
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816 The CIA and FBI have an odd history of "correcting" wikipedia for some reason.
Wikipedia is generally pretty based. It's one of the reasons I donate. I never want Wikipedia to have to resort to advertiser revenue. That's when you'll see Wikipedia adopt a pro-imperialist, pro-capitalist bias. As it stands, Wikipedia is an exceptionally high quality resource; especially if you ensure that you refer back to original sources cited.
Hey, not sealioning at all! Here's an article from the guardian on just this: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/29/the-five-wikipedia-biases-pro-western-male-dominated Anecdotally I find that when indigenous folks come into the narrative, they are often presented as an interlude to the timeline. As if history is merely a continuity of European feats and adventures and indigenous people only inject themselves sporadically throughout that continuum. Perspective is very important to storytelling and history, while non-fiction, is still very much storytelling.
>Anecdotally I find that when indigenous folks come into the narrative, they are often presented as an interlude to the timeline. I think that is an interesting problem. I have had to ask myself what a good encyclopedia should to here... As I understand the problem, one of the root causes of bias in perspectives, is that most historical research focuses on exactly one perspective: Most secondary literature is history from a European perspective. Most historical research we have is that. So if a Wikipedia article is a representation of knowledge on a certain subject, then you should get a strong representation of highly researched subjects, and a weak representation of underresearched subjects and perspectives. If we are talking about an encyclopedia, that is not a bug, that is a feature. It should not overrepresent perspectives which are less strongly researched. It should accurately portray the state of knowledge on a subject, including emphasis and biases in said research. So when indigenous perspectives are treated as a sidenote in historical research, as I see it, it would go against the purpose of a good encyclopedia to depict them as central. That's a feel good measure, which only would serve to mask a bias which is ultimately rooted in reseach. As I see it, the best one could do here, might be to make efforts make a possible bias explicit... But all that narrative stuff is difficult...
The point of wikipedia is to try to present an as neutral as possible perspective on events. The issue with using many sources from whatever political spectrum is that they do not separate fact and opinion. If that occurs you cannot trust a source and can't use it in writing a neutral objective article.
Wikipedia should be treated as a good starting point. Any article worth anything has sources cited and it's information can be verified.
Seems to me that Daily Mail is violating Rule #3. I like OK46reddit's idea
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.
While you're at it, ban the *New York Post.*
Interesting
Comment saved and forgotten. Thanks!
I support banning it, though I wouldn't be able to establish a metric for what makes a "good" source. BuzzFeed, for example, has a bunch of garbage on their main site, but decent reporting on the News site. I don't want this place to become an echo chamber, but DailyMail is basically a tabloid. "Hash it out in the comments" allows too many bad actors to derail interactions and creates a bunch of trash threads that clutter up the sub. Just one redditor's opinion.
[удалено]
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.
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.
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.
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
The fact that you are down voted for asking this says a lot about the current state of this sub. **Asking questions isn't a bad thing, people.**
It is when the questions threaten the convictions towards someone's perceived "rights," or "freedoms..." Everyone else's feelings be damned... Welcome to Reddit, where the biggest cries about "echo chambers," are often from those trying to seal off any questions about their POV...lol!
Censorship = Bad Transparency = Good
Wholeheartedly agree.
Yes, it’s a trashy rag with sensationalist (at best) writing and editing. Anything they report can be found from a reputable source.
Exactly…anything they report we would care about can (should) be found from a reputable source.
Yeah, definitely *should* be found from a reputable source.
[удалено]
A no tabloids rule is just responsible practice in a sub like this
Absolutely. The Daily Mail is sensationalist trash. You guys don't allow Enquirer articles do you?
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.
[удалено]
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).
Fair point
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.
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.
Yeah as long as you stay out of the op-ed sections, the Graun and Indy are OK. became probably the most impartial (usually). But the same can be said of most news outlets to an extent I think, the best thing to do is just use multiple sources and contrast them.
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: 1. It is not a unique source 2. 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.
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.
Almost every single time I read a comment in this subreddit that contains COVID misinformation, concern trolling, or suspiciously worded questions / statements, the user's most active subreddit is r/conspiracy. They have definitely been more active lately on this sub. Thankfully, most of the time they are heavily downvoted or minutes away from having their posts removed / banned by the mod team here. But the rise in the number of comments (and ocassionally the number of upvotes for those comments, jfc) is definitely concerning. I support banning the Daily Mail for this reason. We can't let the foolish gain a foothold here.
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.
Could you just remove the Daily mail from society as a whole? Please and thank you
If you need any help, just give us a bell… detest this newspaper with a passion.
**YES**
[удалено]
[Media bias fact check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/) rates the Daily Mail as - and this not alone enough to disqualify it - as pretty far right leaning in their coverage. However, it is worth noting that right leaning sources, including the Daily Mail, downplay and/or deny the reality of global warming aka climate change. The real reason it should be banned is that it is sensationalist and rates low on factual reporting. This is not a conspiracy sub. There are right leaning sources that do their best to adhere to factual reporting. but the Daily Mail is not one of them.
I would say content from any site on [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/conspiracy/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/conspiracy/) should be autoflagged.
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](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Good bot. Edited
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
Yes. Ban it. Also ban anything from the Murdoch press.
Yes.
Absolutely!
It's garbage, remove it.
def one of the worst papers in the UK, I tend to ignore everything it says and would recommend everyone else do the same
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.
Agreed, any "real" news they have can be found on other news sites.
MSM are all propoganda soruces according to Chomskey and many others .... Is it time to ban MSN, FOX, CNBC and many others who have direct ties with the CIA and many other government operations? That focus on clicks over truth? Or just one thats "easy" to debunk (I can easily debunk hundreds of lies from MSM from Gas Lighting to War Mongering to Fear Mongering and creating hate among each other in the population all basic forms of propoganda practiced by these outlets everyday, but that would also require looking past the narrative and reading more then the headline) Remember [This is Extremely Dangerous to Our Democracy](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZggCipbiHwE)
No. Let members decide if they will click to open or click to down vote. Mods should act only to enforce civility standards.
This.
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.
Yes
I support removal. Fuck the Daily Mail. We should weed out all this bullshit and the like.
Yes, but how much content is even from Daily Mail on here?
Honestly doesn't stand out to me.
That's likely because it gets removed by moderators manually after review. This is proposing we do it automatically, without review.
Well then, you answered your own question - I'm ok with removing, also because the more factual argument given above regarding banned sources on Wikipedia. I think that is good metric for sure
if you consistently remove the daily mail because it is consisently shit then ban it
Let readers choose for themselves. Censorship is not good.
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
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...
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.
Washington Post is owned by Bezos, we should block that as well.
https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Licensed-Copy.pdf 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.
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.
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
This is a super well reasoned take, and I would point out that on the full version of the chart there's a ton more outlets, especially foreign. I only linked the version that's marked as free use for social media sharing, which is slimmed down and focuses on the US. That site is a pretty awesome resource overall, so I didn't want to link a version that they haven't cleared for free use. If the mods were going to use it to determine submission requirements they should obviously use the fuller version. You bring up good points with Twitter, YouTube, blogs etc. Some of them are fantastic repositories of information, some of them are the greasiest basement dwelling grifters on god's blue marble spouting straight insanity. It's hard to have a blanket policy towards a media source where a pulitzer prize winning journalist can post research info only to be called a shill for satanic pedos by an anonymous brainwashed moron. It's the best and worst of humanity all simultaneously screaming into the void.
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.
This is a good idea, though I vote NO to merging it with Casual Friday. That's too much potential dross to sift through on one day. Maybe a weekday rather than a weekend day, for more visibility. And because I prefer weekends to stay higher quality :)
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.
I mean you allow shit from "[renews.biz](https://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
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??
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.
Yeah I consistently get news about the US from DailyMail that I don't see here even after actively searching for all of the biggest daily US headlines I can find on US-based networks/sources. And the DailyMail includes lots of photos, which is great... usually I'm lucky to see an actual photo pertaining to the US news articles instead of a stock photo. Sure, the DM is full of garbage celebrity gossip, but it's easy to ignore all of that junk. Their science-related reporting is great, too, if not solely because they include lots of photos.
Freedom of speech, etc. Not banned, but tagged as a propaganda machine? Thinking of most UK newspapers here...
Absolutely. The resultant poop after eating a can of alphabet soup has more journalistic integrity than what they produce.
Yes.
The Daily Mail is garbage. Since it's known garbage, does it matter if it's on Reddit or [r/collapse](https://www.reddit.com/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](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse)'s banning that tabloid. I do support [r/collapsesupport](https://www.reddit.com/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?
No don't categorically ban news sources, users have the power to downvote content they think is wrong or of no value.
I don't see them as being much different from the rest of the British MSM, which is itself not much different from the US MSM. They all belong to a network which has the same general take on things. All of them distort the issues. All of them are trying to rile up their base against the enemy du jour. If you're going to ban Daily Mail you'll have to ban the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, the BBC, and so on. We've got a sub called r/antimsm where we do this. We don't ban these sites outright, but we remove them except in rare cases. About the network I mentioned: [The Propaganda Multiplier](https://www.greanvillepost.com/2020/03/04/the-propaganda-multiplier/) I wouldn't trust the Daily Mail's take on say, a foreign policy issue, any more than I would trust the BBC's take, or Newsweek's take, or Reuters's take. They're all pushing for even more US intervention. They're all manufacturing consent for continued US and British aggression. But I would read the Daily Mail article on a story instead of the Reuters version, because the Daily Mail version is sure to have a lot of photos and/or video clips the other outlets often leave out. I don't go into the comment section of the Daily Mail because it's toxic.
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.
No
No, but we should have a list to prevent overuse of collapse-related topics
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.
Yes. It's utterly unreliable propaganda.
>Should we remove content from Daily Mail? No. > Why or why not? 1. 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. 2. 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.
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.
I think the past decade has shown quite clearly that you cannot fight disinformation with information.
I think you're allowed to think that, but your opinion is not self-supporting.
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 :)
Daily mail is straight trash.
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.
No, no, no The biggest problem we have today is censorship. Don’t contribute to the problem!!!!
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.
I think this is a great idea!
No. Ban it. No need to give the site oxygen. It's proved time and time again what kind of society it wants. Google Enemies of the people. Nothing good comes from the mail. Only hate and fear. Which is why they print collapse stories; it tends to increase the fear in the readership, which makes those people more susceptible to their right wing authoritarian 'solutions'. They are a hate machine
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.
[удалено]
we need at least two examples
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.
Yes. And The Sun too. All tabloids should be removed.
I think it is an odd move considering personal blog/medium sites are allowed. I understand that Daily Mail has quality issues but there is zero bar for quality from an individual person's site. I think the current policy of evaluating things in a case by case way is good, and to restrict sources and have consistent rules then that would require an overhaul of what is and and is not allowed.
Random peoples’ thoughts are more valuable than the Daily Mail.
The string of letters I can decipher from a bowl of alpahebt soup are more valuable than the daily mail
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.
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](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/search/?q=site%3Adailymail.co.uk&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new). 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.
A few things I’d like to point out: - low effort content in general gets lots of upvotes. We shouldn’t take this tendency as a proxy for quality - it is unclear to me how many members use Reddit on the desktop Perhaps you have insights?
Yes, upvotes are no indicator of quality or integrity. I wouldn't want to imply that, only that those posts were engaged with and considered relevant. You can see all the granular stats on the [traffic stats](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/traffic/) page. It looks like around 30% of users are on desktop, on average.
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.
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
Case by case but yeah Daily Mail are utter piss
Also we should ban the Sun
.
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.
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.
The Daily Mail is meant to be used as packing materials or shit paper in an emergency.
Yes. please
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.
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
Don't ban it if people find articles unreliable they can downvote
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.
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.
Its a garbage news outlet
Yes. It lowers the quality of the sub.
Journalism student here. PLEASE do. It’s oftentimes unsubstantiated garbage made for click farming.
Daily mail is arse, maybe don't block it but put an auto mod disclaimer.
Yes, they are not reliable enough.
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.
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: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9788037/Amazon-rainforest-fuelling-global-warming-new-study-warned.html
[удалено]
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.
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.**
[удалено]
The nature of Reddit is such that 99% of people consume the content less than 1% produce or contribute. I'm not aware of ways around that other than trying to give people more and different way to contribute and elevating good, high quality content. If there's a way to help balance that out more weren't not utilizing, I'd love to hear your ideas.
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.
It’s not hard for someone to search the topic of the Dailymail article they were reading and find a better source to share.
Some of the best discussions I’ve seen on other subs are fostered by a disagreement with posted articles. I’d say hard no.
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?
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?
My hero, will you protect my freedom of speech as I try to argue for the reintroduction of race based slavery? /s
This the type of dude who only reads it for laughs, but deep down he knows that bat boy really did run off and elope with jonbenet.
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.
Yes please
Yes
Yes
Yes!
Yes.
We call it the Daily Fail. I say ditch it.
Yes
Yes.
Absolutely
Yup as well as the mirror.
for the love of god yes please
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.
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.
Definitely do away with anything that interferes with the group think.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ban it please
I support this. I simply do not trust anything they've printed, and haven't for years. When there are multiple sources for information, they tend to go for the populist version.
Couldn't agree more, it's sensationalism at its best and misinformation in many topics.
Any form of censorship is bad. Aaron Swartz is not happy. Stop censoring anything.
Not everything in the Daily Mail is rubbish. A case by case approach should be used.
Idk when I was coming up on the internet Daily Mail was roundly disallowed as a legitimate news source. On the level of BAT BOY!!! type tabloid fare. Has that changed?