[ChrisPebble]

I think the site can still be useful without being balanced. Highlighting collateral damage/silly consequences of a law is a useful service as the public (in my experience) tends to have a low tolerance for too much collateral damage regardless of the intent or positive outcomes of a law.

In this case the EU's ruling "leaves a lot to be desired" is nice way of saying it's unworkable given the complexities of the real world. I don't know what the proper solution would be but I do appreciate someone highlighting silly or potentially harmful consequences of an existing law.

[nmrm]

Did you read the articles on the site (tone o fcuriosity, not indignation)?

* The Daniels-Dwyer article serves no obvious public good.

* The post-it thing is a huge wtf. No idea why anyone would even care.

* The train thing is embarrassing; again, reporting on this amounts to gossip mongering for cash and serves no public good.

* The Osborne thing seems like a politically-motivated intrusion into the private life of a politician's brother. Again, trash reporting.

So unless you disagree that these all amount to unhelpful gossip mongering (well, except to the wallet of a lazy reporter/news agency), a little less than half of the unbalanced results demonstrate no harm to the public good.

edit: tone clarification. Also, I agree with your last paragraph.

[DanBC]

Also, the Merrill Lynch one is wrong.

The first link currently on the site is about the BBC Merril Lynch article. While the site says the censored name is unknown it links to an article that {edit} starts off {/edit} clearly says that O'Neal is being protected. Yet the article is searchable using O'Neal as a search term. The actual censored name is one of the people who left a comment. The only way you don't find the article using Google is if you include that person's name in your search terms.

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-merrill-lynch-and-the-...