Daily Mail vs X

Better newspapers are available.

Twitter has the market cornered.

Spot on.

ive never been a regular user of X/twitter, but decided to take a look during the riots, and jeeeeeeeeessssuuuuusss… what an absolute mess.

fortunately my account is blocked (must have got hacked at some point). I won’t be back there anytime soon.

Twitter’s descent into toxicity is relatively recent whereas the DM has been a rag for many decades. But yeah, they can both get in the sea.

Twitter *had* the market cornered. Increasingly it doesn’t. It’s not going to be replaced by one unified platform though, which will make social media in general less attractive.

Came on hear hoping for a battle to the death

A pox on both of them .  I am in the process of deactivating my twitter account 30 days of Twitter abstinence and it is gone  odd that Mr Musk can delete my account instantly with no comeback at all.

For a second I lived in hope that a court case was looming to decide which toxic dump was worse, but alas...

Simply put, content on X is still user-created so it's not as biased an institution as the Mail has become. That's not to say that with an imminent exodus apparently underway, X won't become a wasteland for right-wing bile propagated by it's owner.

I won't link to X, but there are still recognisable and trustworthy sources on there. so it seems a bit counter productive to blanket the whole site, but increasingly I think folks are beginning to realise its beyond hope. I think folks abandoning it is going to follow the same path as the Ernest Hemingway guide to bankruptcy "gradually at first, then all of a sudden"

and yet you decide to reference both in the thread title.

and then i bump the thread back up the page

is there no end to the insanity or the pile of ironing

I have no problem reading the Daily Mail even if I don't like much of what they write. In fact I find reading the Daily Mail quite beneficial.

Avoiding it sounds like an exercise in burying your head in the sand.  Reactionary right-wing propaganda won't disappear because lefties decide to boycott a newspaper.

I have a similar attitude towards twitter, although I am happy that people should find alternatives.

And the generating money argument doesn't really sway me. I live in a capitalist society where all manner of unpleasant individuals make money out of my activities, I am not going to get hung up or become guilt stricken over that.

I don’t buy the Mail and don’t subscribe to X because I think they’re both providers of very false news. I don’t open posted clips on this site from X and I think neither Rothermere nor Musk deserve my attention.

So why do we continue to have a self imposed ban on the newspaper and not the `Social Media site?

I don't subscribe to X, I just have a free account. The trick with it is to stay in the "Following" tab so you only see stuff posted by people you have chosen to follow and ruthlessly block anyone who posts garbage. If you do that, it's still a useful way to keep up to date with events. If you just let the algorithm choose what you see, you'll get a torrent of misinformation and filth.

The only news worth reading comes from Viz or The Framley Examiner.

I recently deleted Twitter. All I was using it for was to engage in battles of 'wits' with unarmed racists/xenophobes/bigots.

Ultimately pointless, unfulfilling and probably led to a partner of said moron getting a slap - so knocked it on the head. I can't say I've missed it.

The Mail is often a good source for news stories. The editorial and other opinion bits are awful.

Twitter I never have any issue with. I never post, and just use it to get info - it shows me what I look for. Am I doing something wrong?

I used to read The Guardian religiously, but now I regard it as less trustworthy than the Mail.

The choice to share hate is down to the sharer.

I recently deleted Twitter. All I was using it for was to engage in battles of ‘wits’ with unarmed racists/xenophobes/bigots.

There's a block button, just block and move on. Arguing with idiots on Twitter is worse than pointless, it just encourages them.

the-muffin-manFull Member
The choice to share hate is down to the sharer.

Bingo. And actually they're kinda similar in some ways - the HateMail gives a platform to hateful people who spew bile and lies; Twitter gives a platform to people who share lies.

The difference is that normal everyday people have always spread lies and rumours and racism - you might be amazed to know that race riots happened before Twitter existed (I know! Isn't history mad!), and slander and libel existed before Twitter (what what?!). It's just a big megaphone, and most people know there's no trust attached to the platform itself.

Whereas the Daily HateMail has made - and continues to make, every day - a decision to actively hire and pay people who spew racist lies, and a decision to pursue race-based campaigns; and as a newspaper it has a degree of implicit trust.

The Mail is often a good source for news stories

TBH I think that is the principle reason for its success. The quantity of information, detail, and photographs, covering a particular news story can be astonishing imo. I have also seen a lot of very informative and useful health-related articles in the DM. I reckon that non-news articles probably attracts a lot of their readers.

There was a time when links to the DM here sent you to a hold page, explaining that it was a bag of shite but if you really wanted to go there, here's the button. I like that - it let STW overloads say what they thought about it but didn't prevent you actually going there. Not sure why it was got rid of.

I'd be in favour something similar returning and used for both the DM and X

As forum users I think it was be rather good if people who like to go on to X to find what people of note have to say, they just copied and pasted the quote into here, maybe with a reference to say that's where is come from.

A thank you to those STWers who over the last couple of years have announced they're giving up linking Twitter/X and have stuck to it.

As for the Daily Mail, we all know what it stands for and how seriously (not) to take it. With Twitter/X you never know which perhaps makes it even more subversive.

 I like that – it let STW overloads say what they thought about it but didn’t prevent you actually going there. Not sure why it was got rid of.

It may have been down to the trust rating of DM. DM for a while (maybe still does) have a terrible google reputation* for being untrue, meaning linking directly to their content would also mean you get your rankings tarnished by the same brush. I imaging STW bounced you through a proxy of sorts to avoid directly linking to it.

* As in google deemed it a non-trustworthy information source.

Ok, here's an example where I think the Mail has done a reasonable job. Can someone tell me what is wrong with the reporting here?

https://www.****/news/article-13750327/Find-Police-issue-new-pictures-riot-suspects-mob-attacked-Holiday-Inn-Express-housing-migrants-Rotherham.html

Maybe not such high quality news, but if you don't look at the Mail you might miss this. I saw the story on Twitter, by the way.

https://www.****/news/article-13749603/Russian-tourist-tried-rape-cow-gored-animal.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline

I’ve never interacted with anyone/anything on Twitter and only read the following tab with my 100 or so folk so “idiots/arseholes” aren’t an issue.

Maybe not such high quality news, but if you don’t look at the Mail you might miss this. I saw the story on Twitter, by the way.

That is some quality reporting. Thank God someone had a camera handy to document it.

So the Daily Mail is now accurately reporting on the violence its decades long anti-regugee agenda has helped to provoke, Easily.

https://www.****/news/article-13107707/Fury-plans-house-asylum-seekers-tiny-Cumbrian-town-grips-homes-shortage-Bid-migrants-eight-rundown-properties-sparks-anger-police-increasing-patrols-accommodation-vandalised.html

It's got all the classic anti-immigrant nonsense in there if you can be bothered to read it:

They point out that residents already struggle to book GP appointments, there are no dentists, the nearest fully manned police station is 45 minutes away in Whitehaven, hospitals are at least 40 minutes away and 112 local families are on the waiting list for rented accommodation.

One local said: ‘It’s already virtually impossible to get a dental appointment in Millom. The only dentist in town isn’t taking new NHS patients and has a long waiting for private patients.

‘It’s also a struggle to get an appointment at the GP, you have to be quick to get in and it’s a case of queuing on the phone and hoping you’ll be able to see a doctor that date and often you can’t.

The Newspaper That Cried Wolf.

I'm not on X but I reckon theres a lot of good things and good people on it.

The daily mail has had the same rhetoric as far back as anyone can remember. The people who spout the hate on X will more than likely read the DM.

I'm not a DM or Twitter user/subscriber.

I kind of feel.like I don't need to be, on the odd occasion something of note pops up on either site it gets re-reported on another platform and sometimes linked on here, I can still practise my own filter and ignore the links.

I do sort of feel like part of the whole "free speech" "freedom of expression" thing in a functioning democracy has to be allowing objectionable platforms and the people that put objectionable content on them to post and share their views (and or course in doing so 'out' themselves)...

Links to either platform should be fine (IMO) it's the content and the context that often lend some nuance. For instance someone linking to a SYL post from the ongoing 'Southport RW shit-stirers' thread, to illustrate what a shitbag he is rather than as an act of admiration is probably accepted as a choice. Obviously someone linking the same SYL shite and telling us how wonderful his views are is just outting themself as a RW bellend. In either instance we've all learned something about the wider world and the views of a fellow STWist...

There may yet be a tipping point with twitter, but AIUI anyone on any point along the political spectrum can have an account and post on there (right?).

All of that said ST is a business and can have whatever policy they like for posting and linking on this forum (with the assistance/cooperation of the voluntary Mods), I'm pretty comfortable with their choices so far TBH...

The Daily Mail actively promotes far-right propaganda and lies.  Twitter merely permits its users to post far-right propaganda and lies.

In the case of the latter it's possible to curate my feed to provide content I'm interested in.  In the former, there is no content I'm interested in.

Yeah, I don't have a twitter account, mainly as I want less unregulated crap rather than more.

"space Karen" is doing quite an effective job though... most companies think they need to have a twitter presence for PR reasons. Because they are told to.

My parents love the DM and won't hear a bad word said against it (by me) as it set them up for life financially as they followed some of its advice once and it came in mega quids in. It has however brain washed them into its bile which gets my dad stuttering and stammering when I point out their youngest son is also an economic migrant and 'took the job' of a local when he moved to Australia.

I still can’t believe musk paid over $40bn for twitter

i got it free with my phone…

The Daily Mail actively promotes far-right propaganda and lies.  Twitter merely permits its users to post far-right propaganda and lies.

If you honestly believe that Twitter is not now actively promoting far-right propaganda and lies, please look into it some more.

Does anyone know about web development?

I was just wondering if when a twitter post is embedded in a STW post, would that count as a view on twitter whenever the embedded post is loaded in STW?

edit, a quick google suggests that since 2022 they do count it in the view count, so an excellent reason for not allowing embedded twitter posts IMO, provide a link rather than embedding the post so those that want to choose to actively engage with twitter can do, and the rest of us don't end up supporting the far right propaganda machine just by loading a STW forum page.

If you honestly believe that Twitter is not now actively promoting far-right propaganda and lies, please look into it some more.

I curate my feed.  They can promote what they like, I won't see it.

I live in an little village in suburban Germany, I don't experience the negative aspects of congestion and the localised pollution it creates in my daily life therefore I can dismiss the wider damage it does to society?

It really is the epitome of right wing tory rhetoric to keep  saying "I'm all right jack" and dismiss the wider problems created by what twitter has become.

I can't believe they were proposing to house people in Millom. Sadistic monsters.

I don't get the hate for Twitter, as others have said, you can control what you get in your feed, only follow stuff you are interested in, my case is cycling and all forms of motor racing, I dont see anything else as I'm not looking for it. It is a bit like saying you'll never use a library as they have books in you don't agree with, just move along to the stuff that interests you and follow that. The Daily Mail though, is a different kettle of fish......

I curate my feed. They can promote what they like, I won’t see it

I'm not too sure it really matters what you see - I think I know you well enough to think that far right content it unlikely to touch the sides. The problem is feed of those more easily 'corrupted' - even more so if they don't appreciate algorithms are at play. For them, it normalises views that should not be normal. See also the Daily Mail, but that to my mind is not as bad. It's the vastness of the content on X, and the unaccountability of what is now published.

I curate my feed. They can promote what they like, I won’t see it

So problems only exist if you experience them personally? Even though you don't see the problems because you actively  "manage" them out of your user experience, but you then still deny the problem exists. That really is some logical tightrope you are walking, and while wearing blinkers.

So problems only exist if you experience them personally? Even though you don’t see the problems because you actively  “manage” them out of your user experience, but you then still deny the problem exists. That really is some logical tightrope you are walking, and while wearing blinkers.

From what I can make out, so are you, but I was never very good at untangling semantics.

FWIW, I haven’t had any contact with any DM content for at least a couple of decades, Xitter, on the other hand, I find quite handy for trolling the assholes on there, and I never bother checking for any response, it just gives me a certain amount of satisfaction being able to call out people like Rowling, and JD Vance on their personal Xitter accounts.

Even though you don’t see the problems because you actively  “manage” them out of your user experience, but you then still deny the problem exists.

Think of Twitter as being a community of people, like a very large city. You choose to socialize with the people you like and avoid contact with the ones you don't like. Living in the same city as people who don't like doesn't mean you endorse the views of those people. Not socializing with anyone at all because there are some people you don't like is hurting yourself and the people you want to socialize with, it doesn't make any difference to the people you don't like.

I follow a lot of reputable journalists, academics, public figures, sportspeople, etc. on Twitter. It's an excellent way to keep up with what they're doing. I only look at the "Following" feed (i.e. so I only get content posted by people I like and trust). Anyone who posts misinformation (i.e. in the comments) get blocked instantly. Twitter's still really useful if you use it sensibly.

And to prove a point regarding twitter still has value, here’s Nick Cave being awesome

https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1824107625232961633?s=61&t=27Xz8oI3pGlaNEQvowJBcg

Twitter is owned by a fascist-curious man-child billionaire. He has made his opinions quite clear, so at this point, people still using it are, unfortunately, enabling his far-right agenda.

people still using it are, unfortunately, enabling his far-right agenda.

LMAO, you think Kamala Harris, AOC, Bernie Sanders, etc. are far-right sympathizers?

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris

https://twitter.com/AOC

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders

I follow a lot of reputable journalists, academics, public figures, sportspeople, etc. on Twitter. It’s an excellent way to keep up with what they’re doing. I only look at the “Following” feed (i.e. so I only get content posted by people I like and trust). Anyone who posts misinformation (i.e. in the comments) get blocked instantly. Twitter’s still really useful if you use it sensibly.

The problem with this approach is you end up only seeing content that align and reinforces your own beliefs. The classic echo chamber. Liking and trusting someone doesn’t mean they don’t have an agenda.

The problem with this approach is you end up only seeing content that align and reinforces your own beliefs.

Same could be said about refusing to read the Daily Mail.

I follow a range of accounts on Twitter, including some Wall Street Journal journalists and some Republicans who have publicly disavowed Donald Trump - they are still conservatives, but they are principled enough to criticize what the Republican Party has turned into so it's worth following them to understand what thoughtful conservatives believe. Anyone who posts misinformation and racist nonsense just gets instantly blocked - that's mostly right-wingers but left-wing tankies too.

Think of Twitter as being a community of people, like a very large city. You choose to socialize with the people you like and avoid contact with the ones you don’t like.

A better analogy would be living in a massive city and your doorbell going - "Hi, I'm Derek. I saw that Dave knocked on your door yesterday and you chatted and as I'm a bit like Dave I wondered if you'd like to let me in today? Well, I say I'm like Dave......I'm just a bit more edgy. I heard that Dave chatted to you about shagging his girlfriend yesterday. Well, we could chat about me shagging sheep - pretty much the same thing, just a little more fun I reckon----What! you don't want to let me in? Don't worry, Brian will be along tomorrow. He's also a bit like Dave...kinda".

Meanwhile, Elon lurks out under the street light counting with his tick sheet, adding another $0.0001 to his tally chart every time someone new knocks on your door, prepping the next one up you might let in.

I don’t get the hate for Twitter, as others have said, you can control what you get in your feed, only follow stuff you are interested in,

Oh, I get the hate. It's owned by a fascist sociopath whose idea of "free speech" is to let people do as they please, with wholly predictable results.

For them, it normalises views that should not be normal.

Oh, for sure. But you could say that of most media, social or otherwise. Hell, you could say that of this forum even.

you then still deny the problem exists.

I didn't say that. Rather, the problem is one created of their own volition. If people are reading right-wing bile, it's because they want to read right-wing bile. People still buy the Daily Express for gods' sake.

A better analogy would be living in a massive city and your doorbell going

So unplug the doorbell.

If you're viewing "following" rather than "for you" then this problem goes away.

Meanwhile, Elon lurks out under the street light counting with his tick sheet, adding another $0.0001 to his tally chart every time someone new knocks on your door, prepping the next one up you might let in.

If you just stick to your "Following" feed, nobody can knock on your door except people you've invited. Twitter isn't profitable so it's actually costing Elmo money for you to use the service he provides, you're not paying him anything.

@Cougar

Rather, the problem is one created of their own volition. If people are reading right-wing bile, it’s because they want to read right-wing bile. People still buy the Daily Express for gods’ sake.

I'm not sure that's quite correct. I'm fairly sure that there's evidence that people become radicalised by what is shown to them over time, especially on social media.

The problem with this approach is you end up only seeing content that align and reinforces your own beliefs. The classic echo chamber. Liking and trusting someone doesn’t mean they don’t have an agenda.

Yeah!....damn those scientists, engineers, authors etc that I follow...what do they know about the scientific method....and how dare they align with what I was taught regarding mech/elec engineering...what about the other voices that decree the earth is flat...where are they?

What a daft comment?, I can see what you were trying to say but you rather clumsily threw everything and everyone on twitter into the shit bucket and threw it at the screen.

Another one here who doesn't see much hate, just posts from those people I follow and who entertain me. I don't use it as a news source.

Yeah!….damn those scientists, engineers, authors etc that I follow…what do they know about the scientific method….and how dare they align with what I was taught regarding mech/elec engineering…what about the other voices that decree the earth is flat…where are they?

What a daft comment?, I can see what you were trying to say but you rather clumsily threw everything and everyone on twitter into the shit bucket and threw it at the screen.

God you are so right. All those fraught scientific debates on SM leading to such levels of hatred and division in the world.

If you just stick to your “Following” feed, nobody can knock on your door except people you’ve invited.

You do know that this can be changed anytime Elon decides to? It's just software, not some ancient human right.

Twitter isn’t profitable so it’s actually costing Elmo money for you to use the service he provides, you’re not paying him anything.

Yes, I wonder why he's doing that. Perhaps he's just a generous, kind and caring person?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/18/inciting-rioters-in-britain-was-a-test-run-for-elon-musk-just-see-what-he-plans-for-america?CMP=share_btn_url

You do know that this can be changed anytime Elon decides to?

But he hasn't done that, at least not yet. If he does, I'll reconsider, but until then, Twitter is still pretty useful.

Yes, I wonder why he’s doing that. Perhaps he’s just a generous, kind and caring person?

He got coked off his head and blew his mouth off, promising to buy Twitter for much more than it's worth. Once he sobered up, he tried to back out of the deal but couldn't. Now he's stuck with an SM service that will never be profitable but his ego won't let him admit he made a mistake and sell it for pennies on the dollar. He's an idiot.

Yeah!….damn those scientists, engineers, authors etc that I follow…what do they know about the scientific method….and how dare they align with what I was taught regarding mech/elec engineering…what about the other voices that decree the earth is flat…where are they?

What a daft comment?, I can see what you were trying to say but you rather clumsily threw everything and everyone on twitter into the shit bucket and threw it at the screen.

God you are so right. All those fraught scientific debates on SM leading to such levels of hatred and division in the world.

Maybe a bit of research into Galileo and the attitude of the Church towards science might help you avoid making such stupid snarky statements. An attitude, I hasten to point out, that is very much around today among the Far Right and Evangelicals, and Nationalist Christians. People who are encouraging hatred and division in the world, happily enabled by the likes of Musk.

In some cases there isn't really any other way of following certain people - who aren't spilling bile, in the case of Twitter.

There's nothing new here - we operate in a society where wealthy people control the media. The problem is not the media per se - it's capitalism's spiralling grasp on pretty much every part of our life.

This thread ignores many other faulty publications and platforms to make its point and that is a bit disingenuous.

Personally I think it's better moderates stay on these platforms and challenge stuff where possible.

I've managed to get responses from people like Peter Hitchens for example who basically spouted a load of guff.

Where else could I do that?

Not that it solved owt but he did respond.

In some cases there isn’t really any other way of following certain people

And there isn't really a great alternative.  BlueSky should be the solution, it's made by the same people who created Twitter, but it's dead.  Mastodon is getting there but the convoluted 'fediverse' approach puts people off, its greatest strength is its greatest flaw.

This thread ignores many other faulty publications and platforms to make its point and that is a bit disingenuous.

Personally I think it’s better moderates stay on these platforms and challenge stuff where possible.

Not just this thread. It's in "traditional" media's interests to pretend social media are the root of all the world's ills, but even so, the narrative everywhere is that proper media is OK, it's that nasty social media that's causing all this.

I’m not sure that’s quite correct. I’m fairly sure that there’s evidence that people become radicalised by what is shown to them over time, especially on social media.

mmm... would like to see it if you can find it. There's obviously correlation (people with extreme views consume extreme content), but causation has always been tough to prove. The other thing is it would be very good to see the same research done around established media - the Express, Daily Hatemail, Fox News etc. In fact, it has been done for Fox News, and the research found that people's views did become less extreme once they were weaned off the supposedly "trusted" effluent it spouts.

Because there's 2 parts to it really: there's the views and content that are published (on each channel); there's then the perceived reliability and trustworthiness of that content. And where most people do accept that social media just people sharing a worldview, the Hatemail, Fox News etc make out that these are "facts", and people are significantly more likely to believe it's the truth - and thus to buy into what's being peddled.

I don't think anyone is saying traditional media is fine at all. But traditional media is the same for everyone who reads it, yes they promote the same things, but they can't focus and tailor the message the same was as social media. For example, as I was following cycling stuff, I would get stuff popping with stories about eu regulations ruining cycling. It was focussed on my interests and a complete misrepresentation. The DM and the like can't focus their content to different user groups any where near as well to draw people in to the main thrust of their hate campaigns, they need them to be on board with their general thrust in the first place.,

It is nudge psychology, and they are getting better at it, and are using technology on a level that traditional media can't achieve.

....and there is at least still some regulation of traditional media, even if it isn't great, it isn't the unregulated mess of SM quite yet.

The DM = owned by part of the elite who finance this propaganda operation to distract and obscure.

The landed gentry who own most of the land and don't pay any tax = ????

Poor people, disabled people, migrants, etc. = KILL THEM ALL

It’s in “traditional” media’s interests to pretend social media are the root of all the world’s ills, but even so, the narrative everywhere is that proper media is OK, it’s that nasty social media that’s causing all this.

I've been saying this for years.

It shouldn't come a surprise at this point, it's the Right's core MO.  "See everything that's shit?  It's all someone else's fault."  Which as narratives go is exceptionally compelling.

There’s obviously correlation (people with extreme views consume extreme content), but causation has always been tough to prove.

Again, this isn't new.  How often have we seen, for example, a mass shooting in the US and then the news goes "he was found to have played violent video games."  The suggestion that, as above, it couldn't possibly have been the shooter's fault but that the games made him do it.  Neatly sidestepping the really ****ing blindingly obvious point that someone shooting up a school might also be predisposed to games with guns in them.

TBH I think that is the principle reason for its success. The quantity of information, detail, and photographs, covering a particular news story can be astonishing imo. I have also seen a lot of very informative and useful health-related articles in the DM. I reckon that non-news articles probably attracts a lot of their readers.

Really?  really?

Its health stuff is lies mainly as is its "news"  Do not believe anything it says about health.  Its got a long track record of lies and distortion

It’s in “traditional” media’s interests to pretend social media are the root of all the world’s ills

I disagree.

I'm old enough to have done my degree pre internet. If you got a current student to attempt to write an essay without access to the internet they would be lost. Further, If I was to attempt to write that essay today without the internet I'd also be lost. I no longer have the skillset to cope.

Traditional media is the same as the above. Most modern journalists are effectively curators of X feeds. Without X and the ctrl-c and ctrl-v keys I don't think many would know how to put together a byline  Newspaper budgets no longer include flying journalists around the globe and putting them up in hotels for weeks on end to chase a story.

If X shut tomorrow the 'traditional media' would be way more ****ed than a group of needy semi celebs that had lost their voice because they are not really important enough for anyone to seek them out any other way. Or the millions and millions of us addicted great unwashed who can't get through an hour without a scroll. Modern media needs X so for them to be speaking out is significant

X and The Daily Mail are basically the digital and analogue equivalent.

If X shut tomorrow the ‘traditional media’ would be way more **** than a group of needy semi celebs

Interesting point, and I do agree. But they don't see it like that: they primarily view X as a threat because it's "stealing" their ad revenues. Most of the newspapers have seen declining circulation in the past two decades, and sharply declining ad revenue as well. And they've seen digital giants generating significant ad revenue, and so believe that if Twitter went away they'd all benefit because advertisers would go back to them.

It's pretty much all bunk, but it is a very real and driving belief in print/ 'traditional' media these days.

Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover Is Now the Worst Buyout for Banks Since the Financial Crisis - WSJ

https://twitter.com/Levitt_Matt/status/1825908170398511323