Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 48 posts

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#11

Post by matthewmacleod »

s9w wrote: post #6
viraptor wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting case where the website is wrong by its own admissions. The number of redactions released for Daily Mail after publication is the highest in the UK (compared to other tabloids). It's a kind of slippery slope, but it would be much worse if they made that judgement against some vaguely reasonable paper.

Newsguard already managed to get installed on school and library PCs in some US states. If they succeed, they will soon be the most powerful organization in existence, as they will have total control of information. I don't blame Newsguard - of course they want more power for themselves. But I do blame Microsoft for working with them.

That’s dumb. Nobody is being prevented from reading the content. They’re just being warned—correctly—that the information is unreliable.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#12

Post by renholder »

kdf83 wrote: post #7

Shit. This is disgraceful. One can disagree with how the DailyMail paints stories but this is simply censorship by the left.

>...this is simply censorship by the left.

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#13

Post by beaconstudios »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #11
s9w wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newsguard already managed to get installed on school and library PCs in some US states. If they succeed, they will soon be the most powerful organization in existence, as they will have total control of information. I don't blame Newsguard - of course they want more power for themselves. But I do blame Microsoft for working with them.

That’s dumb. Nobody is being prevented from reading the content. They’re just being warned—correctly—that the information is unreliable.

the issue at hand is how they determine reliability and where they draw the line at acceptable vs unacceptable. I'd argue the left-leaning equivalent of the Daily Mail would be BuzzFeed, complete with regularly posting skewed or outright false information (see this example from a couple of days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-n...). If they want to be consistent you could argue they should place the same warning on BuzzFeed. But then how much falsity constitutes "unreliable"? And how do we warn about places people go for news that aren't news organisations, like twitter or facebook? There's loads of nonsense on those too and plenty of people rely on them as sources.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#14

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

kdf83 wrote: post #7

Shit. This is disgraceful. One can disagree with how the DailyMail paints stories but this is simply censorship by the left.

I was 100% in agreement with you up until "the left" part. Do you have any evidence that this is some sort of coordinated effort by this mysterious political group?

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#16

Post by kingofhdds »

bb101 wrote: post #4

I suppose it might serve as a useful warning for readers from other countries, especially if their country doesn't have tabloids of their own. I would say most people in the UK know to take news from certain publications with a grain of salt, but it can be far from obvious for others.

There are no countries where there are media, but no "tabloids" (also the term can be different). The UK is not that unique as you seem to believe.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#17

Post by zimpenfish »

beaconstudios wrote: post #13
matthewmacleod wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s dumb. Nobody is being prevented from reading the content. They’re just being warned—correctly—that the information is unreliable.

the issue at hand is how they determine reliability and where they draw the line at acceptable vs unacceptable. I'd argue the left-leaning equivalent of the Daily Mail would be BuzzFeed, complete with regularly posting skewed or outright false information (see this example from a couple of days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-n... ). If they want to be consistent you could argue they s…

> see this example from a couple of days ago

“BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate.”

That could mean anything from "flat out wrong" to "they got a single word wrong in the reported speech but we don't want to tip anyone's hand whilst we're still working on this". It definitely doesn't warrant being described as "skewed or outright false information" until we know more, does it?

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#18

Post by stingraycharles »

beaconstudios wrote: post #5
viraptor wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting case where the website is wrong by its own admissions. The number of redactions released for Daily Mail after publication is the highest in the UK (compared to other tabloids). It's a kind of slippery slope, but it would be much worse if they made that judgement against some vaguely reasonable paper.

either way, browser vendors should not be the arbiters of truth. I can't think of a news source that hasn't had at least some falsities published - it's the nature of the industry. Sure, the Daily Mail is notably worse than others. But to single them out for "fake news" labelling is worryingly arbitrary.

I find it’s very interesting, because isn’t this type of thing precisely what lawmakers want Facebook and the likes to do, warn people not to trust certain content? Since they’re both tools instrumental for consuming content, what makes it different when Microsoft does it?

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#19

Post by zimpenfish »

beaconstudios wrote: post #5
viraptor wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting case where the website is wrong by its own admissions. The number of redactions released for Daily Mail after publication is the highest in the UK (compared to other tabloids). It's a kind of slippery slope, but it would be much worse if they made that judgement against some vaguely reasonable paper.

either way, browser vendors should not be the arbiters of truth. I can't think of a news source that hasn't had at least some falsities published - it's the nature of the industry. Sure, the Daily Mail is notably worse than others. But to single them out for "fake news" labelling is worryingly arbitrary.

> But to single them out for "fake news" labelling is worryingly arbitrary.

Wikipedia did it in 2017 - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia...

It's not like this is a random bolt from the blue.

Re: Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users

#20

Post by beaconstudios »

zimpenfish wrote: post #17
beaconstudios wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the issue at hand is how they determine reliability and where they draw the line at acceptable vs unacceptable. I'd argue the left-leaning equivalent of the Daily Mail would be BuzzFeed, complete with regularly posting skewed or outright false information (see this example from a couple of days ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/business/media/buzzfeed-n... ). If they want to be consistent you could argue they s…

> see this example from a couple of days ago “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the special counsel’s office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s congressional testimony are not accurate.” That could mean anything from "flat out wrong" to "they got a single word wrong in the reported speech but we don't want to tip anyone's hand whilst we'r…

It warrants being called skewed, because I doubt the man in charge of investigating the allegations would make a public statement to call out a "single word wrong". At the very minimum there is something incorrect about the statement itself if "Mr No-Comment" is making a comment. Especially so if no other outlet has yet been able to verify the claims, as stated in the NYT article.
Post reply on HN