[Closed] We're not THAT doomed! (Daily Wail content)

i have a new found respect for this website - well done for not allowing direct links to the daily wail!

No Daily Mail

I’m sorry but we don’t allow direct links to the Daily Mail on our website as we find it an abhorrent publication.

For an explanation of why this is we can’t think of a better illustration than Stephen Fry’s personal account of his dealings with this publication here. We would encourage you to read this before continuing on to the Daily Mail website.

If you still want to visit the Daily Mail website your can use this link:
> http://www.****/sciencetech/article-2393212/Perfect-Storms-TV-shows-images-Britain-wrecked-natural-disasters.html
/p>

The above link has a nofollow attribute applied.

Brilliant!

I swear 50% of the Daily Mail circulation, both online and physical *uhhhh* release, are by people who read it to get outraged/point and stare.

I didn't realise, but Chapeau Singletrack! A bit like those parts of the internet you're *not* supposed to view; you can see them, but you have to work really hard to do so...

I shall definitely renew my subscription. Well done.

Oh, that's first class....

Nice one chaps!

I rarely actually make use of my premier subscription (I don't download the mag very often for eg) but for that, I'm keeping it going ad infinitum.

Cheers

Danny B

Nice work singletrack. Like it.

I clicked through to have a look what the article was. Pure genius. 'More than one in five Britons live in fear of losing everything in a natural disaster'. So we've mocked up some really crap pictures for all of those readers who are hard of imagination. 'WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!'

[url= http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/422152/Immigration-crisis-looms ]Can we still direct link to the Express? That's a decent, upstanding publication and Richard Desmond needs the ad revenues.[/url]

Best thing STW have done for a long time.

Thumbs up.

I'm not a Daily Mail fan but I'm not a fan of this sort of indirect censorship either. I can't help but feel a line has been crossed.

Good work chaps but be prepared for a backlash

I worked for Richard Desmond, oh the stories I could tell, do you want to know why he has never sued Private Eye, because its all true and so much worse.

It is not censorship - they allow you to access the article but with a statement explaining why, morally speaking, they object to direct linking.

That's why I used the word "indirect". What's next, no linking to other forums, political parties, manufacturers of 26" wheels?

Hmmmm, not sure I need to know what STW stance is on The Daily Mail to be honest nor do I need protecting from it. As an adult I can make my own mind up.

Ah - you can all relax, [url= http://www.bnp.org.uk/ ]this one[/url] still works

I agree. As adults we don't want to be part of the DMs traffic sources. The links are there for anyone who wants to continue on to the DM.

nope, i'm all for it. the daily mail is a bastion of racism, homophobia and misogynism, the readers and makers of enforce a far more insidious form of censorship than a 'say what you like but we don't need to listening to it here' approach.

well done singletrack I say

Is this just a bit of a laugh or really a kind of indirect censorship. Funny or slightly silly depending on the answer IMO.

Scotroutes +1

X-post with Marks answer, so........

It's for your own good everyone.
The Mail has an article explaining how direct-link URLs cause cancer.

That's why I used the word "indirect". What's next, no linking to other forums, political parties, manufacturers of 26" wheels?

I was with you until that 26er filth

Excellent stuff.

For those who really like the Daily Hate then the link is there to copy and paste if you want. Or click through.

And if you [b]really[/b] get upset with it you can start your own bike forum I guess and allow it there (STW's forum, STW's rules).

Then I've got kittenblock so can't access Daily Hate/Express anyway.

Will someone please explain the [i]nofollow[/i] bit to this numpty?

Oh, and bad things have (probably) happened...

http://profsimonhaslett.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/great-flood-of-1607-tsunami-or-storm.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storegga_Slide

I detest the Daily Mail but I'm not sure about this either.

Thank you for the stance you have taken to highlight the nature of the Daily Mail.

Rachel

EDIT, ignore me. Reading failure

It's political correctness gone mad! 😀

A decision I disagree with, FWIW.

Fair and proportionate I feel, it doesn't prevent the reader from clicking onwards, it just calmly states STW's position on the matter and leaves it up to you.

I also don't feel the BNP comparison is entirely fair, it's not like people are regularly posting links for BNP press releases on here whereas the Daily Mail's current online business model is producing the kind of outrageous 'linkbait' which crops up on here all the time.

Now if only I could install the tea and kittens blocker on my Nan's eyes. *sigh*

IanMunro - Member

It's for your own good everyone.
The Mail has an article explaining how direct-link URLs cause cancer.

Sbob approves of this post. 🙂

[img] [/img]

Sorry 😀

That one made me laugh Ian - complete hatchet job on the girls, then sympathetic piece below about what the father must be going through. DM is so far gone it probably can't even understand the irony.

Great move by STW, well done.

I'm not a Daily Mail fan but I'm not a fan of this sort of indirect censorship either. I can't help but feel a line has been crossed.

+1, while the Daily Mail is a right load of old bollocks, I don't need someone deciding what I do and don't click on.

i'm all for reducing the revenue the DM receives by people (possibly unwittingly) clicking links to their s(h)ite.
censorship? nah. boo frickin' hoo...

We need more people to post on this thread. I'm trying to work out the correlation between those that need someone to decide whether or not they want to click on a web link and those that need told a clean shirt daily is a good idea.

It seems to me that STW has developed a bit of an obsession about the Daily Mail. My advice - chill out, ignore it, don't rise to the bait:-

I'm not a fan of people telling me what I can or can't read.

However some posters need to remember that this is a privately owned website and if the owners have decided that they don't want traffic from here going there then it's their decision, and one that I cannot disagree with.

So I think the DM has consistently crawled under the fence dividing right-to-comment from protecting against deliberate and misleading bias.

Nice one Mark, you aren't stopping anyone so there's little room for objections. You could have reminded everyone about nice Mr Desmond's company's nocturnal activities, but you kept it clean.

Does Richard Desmond own the Daily Mail? I thought he owned the Express?

Excellent move STW. Yet another reason to keep subscribing 🙂

I can recommend the Tea and Kittens browser extension for anyone wanting to avoid accidentally following links to the Daily Mail.

BRAVO Singeltrack Towers!!!

I wonder if the DM know, or even care, about STW's stance? Maybe we mountain bikets are next for some DM vitriol?

I wonder if the DM know, or even care, about STW's stance? Maybe we mountain bikets are next for some DM vitriol?

We probably cause cancer. Or maybe we reduce the house prices when we ride past.

😉

No, we ruin crops and frighten livestock, which raises food prices for hard-working families. And it was a mountain biker wot dun for Princess Di...

http://www.****/scaremongering/article-2393-2delta6/mtbers-give-immigrants-aids-on-nhs.html

http://www.****/scaremongering/article-2338-3plural5/STW-Paris-link-diana-revelation.html

😀

Bear in mind that there's nothing to stop you a) clicking through on the second page or b) copy and pasting the link if you want to read it that badly. It's hardly censorship, just a means of reducing the likelihood of STW appearing in the DM's referrer logs.

Will someone please explain the nofollow bit to this numpty?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow

Well, I am all for free speech and free expression and non-censorship, however, I fully agree with Singletrack on this one ( STW aren't censoring, just reminding everyone of how vile the Daily Mail is)

Well done guys, consider next years subscription renewal as a given 8)

scotroutes - Member

We need more people to post on this thread. I'm trying to work out the correlation between those that need someone to decide whether or not they want to click on a web link and those that need told a clean shirt daily is a good idea.

What happened to Druid? Sure he'd have an opinion?... 😆

I love it

I'm not a Daily Mail fan but I'm not a fan of this sort of indirect censorship either. I can't help but feel a line has been crossed.

Mleh its not really censorship and I wager there are a large number of sites that i would get into trouble for linking to and I could see why they do it
TBH The daily mails business model is to have storied outraged folk read to tut at so they can say they are the most popular website so I can see why they would

'm trying to work out the correlation between those that need someone to decide whether or not they want to click on a web link and those that need told a clean shirt daily is a good idea.

Make more senses to do it with how many times do you wash your hands 😉

I found it weird that not changing your shirt every day equalled minging and personal hygiene issue but bedsheets were just to be changed weekly. Perhaps they dont get any because it is too dirty 😉

We need more people to post on this thread. I'm trying to work out the correlation between those that need someone to decide whether or not they want to click on a web link and those that need told a clean shirt daily is a good idea.

Or those relaxed enough to realise they can still click on it if they want to, but the site owner don't wish to be connected, and the sky doesn't fall in if they put a perfectly fine shirt on again for a second period of sitting doing naff all... 😉

How come so many Daily Wail haters click on the website anyway? The number of "have you seen the latest crap published on the wail" STW threads is really very amusing. Why not simply ignore it for the nonsense that it is? Or deep down, is there some secret pleasure hidden down there that people are scared to admit to?

The only times I have ever clicked on the Wail is in response to threads here to see just what the fuss is about! Then the dismay sets it that this is the most widely read "news" (sic) website!!!

If someone puts 'clicky' I don't always think to hover and check the link. Also, I'm a bit fascinated by what the other half think. Car crash viewing I suppose. Plus as someone who's for freedom of speech I like to hear what the crazies are spounting, so I can consider the argument. I'd click, but I know they make a lot of money from their website, so now I don't as that is not something I wish to assist in.

Why not simply ignore it for the nonsense that it is?

Or deep down, is there some secret pleasure hidden down there that people are scared to admit to?

WTF with the "censorship" comments?

For those who think that a commercial website declining to host direct links to another commercial website whose editorial policies it disagrees with is censoring anything, or preventing you exercising your free will, human rights or whatever, you need to get out more.

Out as in, travel the world a bit. If you don't have the time, money or inclination to travel a bit, maybe use your pretty much unfettered access to the internet (or if you don't have that, try a local library) to read up a bit on censorship. Read a bit about the history of censorship, or maybe look at what the situation's like in other parts of the world, right now, today.

Then come back here and tell us how you having to copy and paste into an address bar, or just clicking through, is censorship.

ooops, wrong again, only the express, star OK and channel 5.

Sometimes I can nearly remember what it was like to have a memory.

How come so many Daily Wail haters click on the website anyway

It's a good point. The only time I have ever found myself on the DM site is via a link on this forum. I have never even stumbled on it from a google search. So how are all those who regularly go on about how awful it is, which of course it is, finding themselves on there so often?

JY - worst troll ever? Where does that come from? FI makes the same point. Is he/she also a troll?

I have guilty pleasures but fortunately reading the wail is not one of them. I see no harm in it existing or being read - that's individual choice - but have no interest personally. But to make a thing of regularly reading it and then moaning about it just seems odd IMO. It's like abusing STW and setting up a rival and then constantly wanting to still play here. What is the point?

I don't come on this website for "moral" (as if) guidance from people who are ill qualified to provide it. It stinks and is remarkably arrogant so I won't be renewing my subscription.

<3 STW

I see no harm in it existing or being read

Yes, apart from the fear/hate-mongering, and the perpetuating of prejudice it does no harm at all. 😕

Or is just that you have some sympathy for the mail's political views, but don't have the conviction to admit it?

When will this reach the Daily Wail so they can post a hate filled article about STW censorship and all cyclists attitudes to "the free press"

It stinks and is remarkably arrogant

Really? I thought it was largely hilarious.

Something tells me this is going to be a long thread:-

very nicely put, edlong. They are not stopping you from reading the DM, they are making a point that they dont want the site THEY OWN to drive traffic to a site they disagree with, for wholly positive reasons.

Chapeau to STW.

How come so many Daily Wail haters click on the website anyway

Pretty much every colleague of mine reads it at work when they have downtime so I am exposed to its content on a daily basis. Sadly most if its readers dont get the glaring irony of "Paedo Hell" articles next to photos of semi-clad/under age girls

[img] [/img]

I actually think the journos and editors are intelligent and "in on the joke". I'm sure they were intelligent enough to know the Brass Eye Paedogeddon show satirised media hysteria rather than paedophilia itself; their rabid response was almost a nod-and-a-wink to Chris Morris. Problem is, most of their readers arent in on the irony.

It is the most visited newspaper website in the world 🙄 😕

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16746785

I think I am going to have to file ''chapeau', along with 'fettling', into my list of words that really get on my tits for no good reason.

Jamie, get one of your steeds out of your stable (or quiver) and go ride 😉

JY - worst troll ever? Where does that come from?

I see no harm in it existing or being read

But to make a thing of regularly reading it and then moaning about it just seems odd IMO.

It's like abusing STW and setting up a rival and then constantly wanting to still play here. What is the point?

Granted it may make little sense and not impact on the mail beyond positively giving it hits hence I think STW have made a fine decision

Chapeau to their fettling I say

Jamie, get one of your steeds out of your stable (or quiver) and go ride

I sense a game of STW Bullshit Bingo is afoot!

Well done STW.

It stinks and is remarkably arrogant

This just makes it funnier.

mefty - Member

I don't come on this website for "moral" (as if) guidance from people who are ill qualified to provide it. It stinks and is remarkably arrogant so I won't be renewing my subscription.

Get over yourself.

To maintain balance I will be subscribing for the first time. 😀

Well, I for one am glad they've ringfenced the unicorn.

I don't come on this website for "moral" (as if) guidance from people who are ill qualified to provide it. It stinks and is remarkably arrogant so I won't be renewing my subscription.

Confession

My GF reads the Mail.

I loathe it more with each article she recounts to me.

(Nice one Grum, almost polite. But your are wrong with the insinuation as per....)

Well if people get pleasue out of "collective tutting" so be it. The Wail is a rag dressed up as a paper but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed. If people want to read it (or any other rags BS) then so be it. More fool them. But telling adults what they can and can't read (not suggesting that this is STW's intention BTW) is more than a little, what's the word, patronising isnt it?

i defer to your expertise in the patronising stakes 😉

Really? I thought it was largely hilarious.

It is hardly surprisingly that someone who is appointed as a moderator shares some values with the operators of the site is it?

Woah, sanctimonious, much?

I would suggest the people who are being sanctimonious, if you look up the meaning of the word, are those expressing an opinion on a mainstream media outlet – not those questioning their qualifications to do so. I personally think it is the sort of naïve gesture found in the JCR and frankly I grew out of those years ago.

If you want to hang out in an enclave of self-righteous bien pensant groupthink, who share an interest in bikes, then no doubt it is an action you would applaud – but whilst appreciating that STW has a predilection for niches – this ain’t one for me. A forum is at its best, in my view, when the participants are trusted to make up their own minds without commentary on sources from the site operators. By this action, STW have, arrogantly, in my view decided we should all be aware of what they think of a particular paper, do they think so little of their participants that they need this guidance? So all in all, it makes the site and the magazine less attractive to me and hence I will not renew – not because I want to make a pyrrhic gesture.

So stick that in your chapeau and fettle it.