STW and Freedom of the Press?

I was reading the thread about the RM not sending “dangerous goods”, confiscating the goods and then selling the dangerous goods on to an auction house. Someone posted a link to a relevant Daily Mail piece and when I clicked on the link this popped up:

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.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462606/Royal-Mail-set-sell-lost-post-items-Ebay–pocket-profits.html

The above link has a nofollow attribute applied

Since when has STW been in favour of press censorship?
I am fully aware of the political bias of many news organisations and am able to make an informed decision about their content.
I wonder what would happen if a poster linked to a far right or left wing organisations website or even a pron site?

The problem is Matt, you’re confusing the Daily Fail with a factual publication.

The problem is Matt you’re confusing censoring with sponsored links. They’re not stopping you viewing the posts and kindly provide a link just not one that sponsors the Daily Mail.

A link to a porn site would lead to a warning or ban.

Drac – Moderator

The problem is Matt you’re confusing censoring with sponsored links. They’re not stopping you viewing the posts and kindly provide a link just not one that sponsors the Daily Mail.

Sorry Drac, I don’t understand. What link do you want me to provide?
I can try left wing newspaper[/url] and see if that gets an STW warning message before I click through to it.
It is not my intention to come across as a right wing DM fan as I see myself as more of a centre moderate.
My point is that the link in the thread was perfectly relevant and we all know what end of the political spectrum the DM is at. We also know that much of the BBC is more left wing. Most of us on here are adults and are able to see through the propaganda.
EDIT: Just checked and my link to the Socialist Worker does not carry any kind of STW warning.

It’s automatic for the Daily Mail the owners of STW don’t want funds going to them from here, sorry if I’ve got that wrong Mark, so they block the link that provides a sponsorship. They’ve not blocked the article as you can see it provides another link.

Not looked at your Socialist link as I’m off to work.

I for one applaud the daily fail censorship, you can still access the article if you really feel the need to read lies and bitter hatred 😉

In the end of the day a private organisation can do whatever they like, they have not censored the DM just advised you it’s not somewhere they like.

We also know that much of the BBC is more left wing.

LOL
one may be a few mm from centre one has never seen the centre

Right at work and the night shift is out.

I’ll try to make it clearer.

Imagine you own a company and advertise in a newspaper, this newspaper then starts printing stories that you no longer wish to be associated with. So you withdraw you advertising so there’s no association between you and the god awful newspaper. You can’t a top your customers reading the paper or indeed them talking about articles in it. You can be shown that you don’t support the paper or it’s articles with no advertising rule.

Does that make sense?

Blimey, bit early for this!

That makes sense. But to a non IT person (yes there is one on STW) what does the DM gain from a link?

http://www.datadial.net/blog/index.php/2013/04/03/how-the-daily-mail-became-the-worlds-most-read-newspaper/
Some background and an exert.

Samantha Brick – Successful Linkbait?
Samantha Brick, one of the Mail’s regular journalists wrote an article entitled ‘Why Do Women Hate Me because I’m Beautiful’ in April 2012. During the following 24 hours, the article trended on Twitter, over 200k Facebook likes and received 1.5 million comments, most of them uncomplimentary.
At the time she was one of the most talked about women in the world. The Mail Online received backlinks from trusted and relevant sources including other national newspapers, Twitter, and many different blogs which included the Business Insider, The Huffington Post, Gawker and Buzzfeed amongst others. Overall the article helped to generate more than 4,000 links to the site. There was also a follow-up article with Samantha Brick in The Independent and TV and magazine interviews which followed.
In SEO terms, this kind of exposure is pure gold and the Mail Online gained a lot of attention. However many of the commentators were concerned at how deliberately the furore was created and maintained.

I’m 5 hours ahead of the UK at the moment and I’m not trying to make any one spit out their cornflakes. I now feel compelled, for the sake of balance, to point out that other cereals are available.
I was genuinely surprised to see the statement regarding a newspaper with a name I shall refrain from mentioning.
Drac, thanks for trying to explain the reasoning. Is it more a commercial than political issue?
At the end of the day it is up to the owners of this or any site to allow or only allow links with a warning.
OK you can all get back to your cereal of choice now 🙂

Still can’t see how clicking here put money in Simone else’s pocket.

Edit: someone else.
No wonder I can’t work this linking thing out, I can’t even use a bloody smartphone.

It’s not censorship. No-one is stopping the Daily Mail from doing what it wants. STW is editing their own publication by not including Daily Mail content.

Who is Simone Else?

Onzadog – Member
Still can’t see how clicking here put money in Simone else’s pocket.
POSTED 3 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

The amount the Mail gets paid for its advertising depends on how many people read the site. More eyeballs sent their way means more pay for the Mail.

PS does the Mail allow the posting of links to STW on its discussion pages?

I’m 5 hours ahead of the UK at the moment

and yet miles behind<enjoy your coco pops*

* other sugary snacks are available

Click throughs can provide a small amount of ad money, not sure that’s the case with a DM link. However, the provide a footfall and association by the links from here being detected to come from here that provided association then Google ads on DM site will match a users history they get money for this. By STW stopping this click through it stops that. I may have explained that badly or got it wrong though as not in IT either. I do own an Audi and a Border Terrier though.

Thanks konabunny,
So what difference does it make if someone links directly in a thread compared to the diverted page which still offers a link?

If both links take you there, doesn’t DM still make money from the same number of eyes on the website?

It does seem all a bit st00dent politics like, but it’s their site and they can do what they want I guess.

If both links take you there, doesn’t DM still make money from the same number of eyes on the website?

The version that it takes you to doesn’t tell the DM that it comes from STW. Also it gives those of us who would rather not read the crap a second chance to avoid it when someone posts a Daily Mail/Fail link.

It’s a load of old bollox really as links aren’t blocked to the “Guardian” even with their dubious track record, just ask MI6 or the victims of the multiple Northern sexual grooming gangs that the “Guardian” denied the existence of for years. Hey ho.

Okay, I’m curious – apart from the obvious (telling us about massive state surveillance) why would MI6 warn me off reading the Guardian?

I’m guessing the Snowdon files and the Grauniad’s involvement.

Its hardly rocket science is it. The people who own and run stw dont like the daily mail and dont want you to click thru from here. If you dont like it go elsewhere.

So doing exactly what the press should do. I can’t see why they should be boycotted for that.

It does seem all a bit st00dent politics like, but it’s their site and they can do what they want I guess

ATP nails it pretty much. The argument contains an appropriate level of irony for STW. Ban the link because we don’t like the newspaper and we don’t want to indirectly give them revenue.* And yet, posts and pages here also provide STW indirectly with revenue. Given that any Daily Wail hate thread will normally generate somewhere between 8-12 pages, there is an element of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. But at least the view from the relatively high horse may make it worthwhile 😉

‘ tis the kind of thing one grows out of after student days though (IMO) – awaits unfriendly future moderation!!!!!!!!!

* fair to say that I have only accessed the wail website via links previously provided in here, so perhaps I should be thankful to STW for saving me from that horror!

http://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-seo/growing-popularity-and-links

This is more about not providing a basis for the Daily Mail as a business to trade on the reputation and “trust” that StW has built up within the web – through search engines etc. – I can’t see how it’s “student” politics – it’s a pretty serious part of the way the internet internet business works, and denying someone those back links because they have abused and leached off the rest of the network for years, seems like a sensible decision – commercially as much as anything else – if there is only one go to place on the internet on the basis of links, then other websites which require it will suffer – if you were Sainsburys, would you allow ASDA to advertise all over your store?

We also know that much of the BBC is more left wing. Most of us on here are adults and are able to see through the propaganda. I’m talking botox.

There. Sorted that pretty easily.

It’s a load of old bollox really as links aren’t blocked to the “Guardian” even with their dubious track record, just ask MI6 or the victims of the multiple Northern sexual grooming gangs that the “Guardian” denied the existence of for years. Hey ho.

I have absolutely no issue with STW not allowing a direct link to the fail. Other marginally better right wing loon newspaper websites are available that aren’t blocked.

1) The links are not banned/blocked they come with a health warning.
2) Read the link above that I posted explaining how the DM sets up it’s online business – THIS ONE http://www.datadial.net/blog/index.php/2013/04/03/how-the-daily-mail-became-the-worlds-most-read-newspaper/

For anyone that missed it the other day, a video explaining exactly why the DM is so terrible:
http://boingboing.net/2012/11/10/precisely-why-the-daily-ma.html

It’s the Linkbait of Hate. I fully support blocking links to it.

I really like the feature.
I don’t want to visit the Daily Mail.
Sometimes a link is just an underlined word/sentence so it’s not clear where the link is going. I don’t always hover and check my browser.

There have been a few instances where I’ve clicked on a link, seen the singletrack interstitial and decided not to click through.
Sometimes, if I really want to know more, I’ll google for a better place to read it.

Given that any Daily Wail hate thread will normally generate somewhere between 8-12 pages, there is an element of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

Off to a good start, what is the spread on total pages? Does Matt get 24k to post spurious Wail articles to generate page content? Is this a subversive attempt to create “last shopping weekend before Xmas” revenue for STW? 😉 A nice little stocking filler!

Jeez, anyone read that Samantha Brick article?

Is it a spoof? The conceit of the woman is off the scale!

I support the STW Daily Fail warnings.

To be fair, it’s a case of knowing your market. Singletrack is a magazine (I know – who knew?), that’s continued existence, and that of the forum you ‘re presently moaning on, depends on flogging subscriptions.

To do this, you need to have an understanding of who you’re marketing it too. They’ve clearly made a decision that this type of person generally isn’t the type who thought Hitler was broadly right, and that anyone on benefits, immigrants, single parents and all manner of other people can be vilified and persecuted in the nastiest way imaginable, and that malicious and ruthless character assassination of anyone who disagrees is fair game. All while displaying a casual disregard for the truth.

I’m just looking at people’s opinions above, and noting if they ‘re subscribers or not. Interesting….

if a daily male link is a meatspin link in disguise, its fine, else its not.

binners – Member 
To be fair, it’s a case of knowing your market. Singletrack is a magazine (I know – who knew?), that’s continued existence, and that of the forum you ‘re presently moaning on, depends on flogging subscriptions.

Which is, interesting, diametrically opposed to the Wails own business model according to the links provided above. Perhaps that is where (sadly for a non-consequentialist like me) the Wail are the clever ones since they have tapped better into modem society’s insatiatiable appetite for crap. But isn’t being niche an underlying theme for MTBers?!?!

.. Is it more a commercial than political issue?

no, its a common sense issue. And common sense says, if you want to visit the link, copy it, paste it into a new tab and you’re there. If they deleted the links, you might have a case to call it “censorship”.

I concede that “censorship” was the wrong word to use.
I am not in the employ of any newspaper or other media outlet.
I did state in one of my earlier posts that it is entirely up to the owners of this site what they do about links, content and adverts.
I just wondered why a link to a main stream news outlet had a warning containing the word “abhorrent”.
Thanks to every one for their input and opinions as that is what a forum is for.
I think I’ll stick to “what tyres for a 650b?” in future 🙂