
Don’t trust Daily Mail website, Microsoft browser warns users - rwmj
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/jan/23/dont-trust-daily-mail-website-microsoft-browser-warns-users
======
ilaksh
Who decides which sites have "real" news and which sites have "fake" news? A
big thing missing from these discussions is the history of propaganda. I think
a lot of people who are worried about "fake news" need to research that term.

Propaganda is still very prevalent especially as far as war goes. Do people
really think that CNN tells them the real reasons for going to war? They will
say whatever the Pentagon tells them. Why? Because no one is going to risk
their lives and kill other people for some technical, strategic reason or just
as part of a larger military campaign. People risk their lives to fight the
"bad guys" who are "evil". They need to believe its a moral cause.

Don't let some giant company (or a small one) dictate what source your
information comes from. If I used a Microsoft browser I would uninstall that
plugin. Assuming that's an option.

------
s9w
Not cool. I can see that browsers want to warn people of (technically)
dangerous websites. But websites that are 'wrong'? Slippiest of slopes.

~~~
viraptor
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.

~~~
beaconstudios
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.

~~~
zimpenfish
> 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...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-
bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website)

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

~~~
ihattendorf
But Wikipedia isn't my browser. I don't think anyone is arguing that Daily
Mail isn't garbage, just that it isn't the browser's job to decide what is and
isn't garbage.

------
chatmasta
Apparently the third party "NewsGuard" service requires browsing history to be
uploaded to them:
[https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1085980638405148676](https://twitter.com/gorhill/status/1085980638405148676)

------
bb101
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.

~~~
kingofhdds
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.

~~~
bb101
I beg to differ. An example is Australia. Plenty of national and regional
broadsheets, but no purposefully trashy tabloids that I can think of.

~~~
wonthegame
But do you know about Bat boy?

------
MadraRua
So its Snopes for the Web? There would need to be some transparency issues
sorted out (i.e, we need to know who's grading the sites and that the service
is open to scrutiny) but the concept is good at least.

~~~
JdeBP
I suggest reading an actual NewsGuard "nutrition label" before commenting on
what's missing from them.

* [https://www.newsguardtech.com/ratings/sample-nutrition-label...](https://www.newsguardtech.com/ratings/sample-nutrition-labels/)

Here's someone who has:

* [http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/08/newsguard-considers-fox-new...](http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/08/newsguard-considers-fox-news-a-healthy-part-of-your-news-diet/)

------
kingofhdds
My immediate reaction to a browser giving unsolicited advices about quality of
the contents is to download another browser. I'm not a kid, thank you.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
_I 'm not a kid, thank you._

Yet your response is very child like.

~~~
Bendingo
On the contrary, GP is resisting the continual infantilising of Western
countries by their corporates, media and governments.

"to treat someone as if that person were a child, with the result that they
start behaving like one" [1]
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/infantil...](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/infantilize)

~~~
claudiawerner
The doctrine of legal paternalism is much less commonly seen now than it was
in the past, with a few exceptions.

------
renholder
>...which has received investment from advertising group Publicis...

Any bets on NewsGuard eventually showing ads?

------
kdf83
Shit. This is disgraceful. One can disagree with how the DailyMail paints
stories but this is simply censorship by the left.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
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?

~~~
nickcotter
It’s literally the number one thing that those of my associates who identify
as right wing universally agree on: there’s some kind of free speech
apocalypse unfolding. They view this as censorship.

