[permo-w]

How about go and visit the Daily Mail’s mobile page and a few articles, and tell me again that they have a case.

The mail should be spending more on web development and less on lawyers.

Of course they can’t turn web development into self-sustaining sensationalism though, can they?

[jariel]

The same thing applies to the Daily Beast and any number of other outfits.

That you would pick on this one highlights the bias in the system.

If there were a 'disconcerting rag' it would be Brietbart, not the Daily Mail.

[permo-w]

the daily mail website is literally unusable on mobile. other sites are bad, but I’ve not seen a single other one where you literally can’t scroll down the page

that I would pick on this one doesn’t highlight the bias in the system, it highlights that the article I’m commenting on is about the daily mail

I don’t see how breitbart is relevant

[jariel]

The issue has nothing to do with technology, it has to do with 'quality' information ranking and Google's supposed bias with regards to who they deem 'credible' and not.

Breitbart is a much more aggressive tabloid, and individuals within Google wanted to ban it outright, arguably because of their 'poor quality' but mostly because their political bias.

My point is that if there is a 'right wing tabloid with questionable legitimacy' that might make people uncomfortable, it's Breitbart. Not The DM.

People are lamenting the DM here because they use 'click bait' headlines and 'misrepresent' information, people are using shamefully hyperbolic language on this thread.

But in reality The DM is just a regular tabloid, and it's not that bad - technical quality issues notwithstanding.

[permo-w]

Should Google give the Mail a pass for having a shit website because their content is controversial?