Can we please ban links to the Daily Mail and New York Post?

and you can ignore those posts and threads.

You're a dreary gay. Horrid combination.

This is not a site curated personally for you and/or for your specific political leanings, OP.

Grow the fuck up.

I don't mind if the links are about something funny or innocuous, mindless celebrity nonsense. I do not want either of those fascist rags being a source for politics.

John Mulaney's comedy album talks about his love for the New York Post and their fuzzy relationship with facts.

Madge really is a great source for the NYP.

R2, if your political leanings are reflected by those two sources, you're damaged - and that doesn't mean I expect you to be a member of DailyKos.

They're no different from any other far-right propagandist site

More censorship!!

[bold]I[/bold] am in control here!!

[quote]I am in control here!!

except she's not. she's a very dull gurl who wants everyone around her to be as dull and miserable as she is.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

The trolls are back and bitter from being time out.

The politics of both the Mail and the NYPost are well known, and people can judge for themselves whether they are pushing an agenda. Besides, they often have good sources about crime stories and celebrities.

R2 in here taking time out of his busy schedule of posting ESTs about trans people being mean to him every time he steps outside to get a coffee.

Both juicy reads. Sorry.

[quote]The politics of both the Mail and the NYPost are well known

They're not. People will argue until the day they die that those are both perfectly normal, neutral, legitimate news sources with no observable agendas.

I don't care if the links are banned or not, but I would like to know why we went so long without being able to post to regular news sites like some local places, CNN, etc. but Breitbart, DM, even Stormfront could be linked to without problem, and were.

OP has stated her boundaries!

DM is so jammed full of land mine ads that it’s unusable. And forget trying to scroll.

They keep repeating the same lines so the article seems longer and they can cram some more ads in there. If you love it so much, stay there and post there with likeminded losers. This is not the place for immature childish journalism.

They are both owned by right-wing gremlins who hide in the shadows while they hire goons to do their bidding.

Let’s see how they would last one day in the public eye.

Those websites are trash and trade in blackmail and stalking. Didn’t these people hack into voicemails and god knows what else.

Anytime you support those sites you are an accomplice.

And you people let these elite crook editors and owners make a fortune and get away with everything. You serve your purpose to them as feeder ants. Pat yourselves on the back.

[quote] [R2] in here taking time out of his busy schedule of posting ESTs about trans people being mean to him every time he steps outside to get a coffee.

Oh, you're stalking me. How creepy.

[quote] They are just media wastelands

You’ve just described DL

Because of those constant links. It’s ridiculous. Every DM article gets a post now. Every one.

Where else but the DM could I have found a VERY long article with many pics of the marriage this past weekend of Prince Jaime of Bourbon-Two Sicilies?

[quote]the marriage this past weekend of Prince Jaime of Bourbon-Two Sicilies

...tying the knot with Lady Charlotte Lindesay-Bethune no less!

Gee, I am able to read stuff from all over. I don't throw a tantrum about it. I have no problems sourcing information from different places and then checking some more.

Because, as we all know, the race obsessed New York TIMES, and the WaPO, and the Independent, and The Guardian . . . don't have any agendas, at all.

Right?

You don't get to set bans on any news media outlet whose "slant" you don't like, especially not here.

Do fuck off and head back to Sunshine Sachs' office.

R17 - That was one outlet, Rupert Murdoch's.

If you're complicit by reading the Mail and the SUN (and by the way, it's a tad suspicious that you're leaving out other European and American tabloids), then you're complicit by being on a gossip site at all.

This IS a gossip site, not the Kremlin.

Take your pompous morality somewhere else.

Isn't this entire site based on "wastelands. With no real news."

You do realize you can just NOT click on links, dumbass.

Just have a pop up every time someone clicks the post button that asks them a series of random questions such as their opinion on climate and immigration. Only when they answer them all correctly, then they are able to post. You could also have flairs like on Reddit on certain threads such as "No Disagreement allowed" and "For Non Fascists Only" so that users who are flagged for having problematic views are locked out of threads. It's a perfect solution.

[quote]Every DM article gets a post now. Every one.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're prone to exaggeration in real life.

Well, then links to the NY Times and MSNBC should also be banned due to their obvious bias and tenuous grasp on the truth. It's only fair.

I like reading the comments on Daily Mail articles.

It'd be interesting to see what these right-wing billionaire defenders come up with as evidence of OBVIOUS BIAS in the NY Times. I know I can come up with example after example of the Post and the DM being on the side of capital and the carceral state and against any kind of social safety net and promoting fear and paranoia about brown people, poor people and immigrants.

The Times is all in for Hamptons weekends and Mind Expanding Theater.

But they hire black people so I'm sure some on this thread are all triggered.

Agree with R10 and R24. I "read' the NY Post every morning with my first coffee. They present short takes on news stories and decent gossip. As far as politics, I want to know the right wing talking points that will be used against the democrats in elections. I ignored right wing media and opinions until Trump was elected. Now I want to be informed no matter how disagreeable that point of view is.

Though the DM is decidedly right wing, they did some of the best take downs of Trump when they got sick of him. One of my favorites was disputing one of his many lies about not meeting certain people by displaying multiple pictures of him and those people he claimed not to know.

English tabloids are -- blech. Just a cesspool of lies. It's how we got Andrew Sullivan and Boris Johnson.

For those alone, they should be banned.

The Daily Mail is an aggregator-- it repackages stories first run elsewhere. It is the fastest at disseminating breaking news. It also runs hilarious gossip stories that, like it or not, complement the humor and sensibilities of most of the readers here. Yes, its editorials slant right and are sometimes terrible. So ignore them.

The New York Post isn't a great aggregator and its editorials are shit. But sometimes they run juicy gossip, like the MSNBC story the other day. If you're able to evaluate the media you consume, then you shouldn't need someone to censor entire sources. For some things (especially entertainment) both are great sources that appeal to a lot of people here.

I never see any ads on the DM or anywhere, I just don't get when people complain about seeing any ads or pop ups. If you see ads you deserve to see ads.

r34

I start the day with DailyMail , after that I switch over to TheGuardian.

And like most true NYers do, I read both the NYTimes and the NYPost.

The NY Times is the worst of them all. It’s it a “liberal” newspaper. It’s role is advocating for illegal wars and going out to the heartland to run weekly stories attempting to normalize the racist idiocy of the rubes in small town diners.

It isn’t

[quote] It’s role is advocating for illegal wars and going out to the heartland to run weekly stories attempting to normalize the racist idiocy of the rubes in small town diners.

So fucking true.

r37

How about banning PinkNews.

it was still Rupert Murdoch who didn't try to squelch John Carreyrou when he was working to expose Elizabeth Holmes.

Nothing is as black and white as you think, OP.

Better pack your bags and move to Russia, Boris.

Does anyone here even take Pink News seriously?

[quote]I don’t like being “tricked” by these links.

Serious question, OP: how fucking stupid are you?

LMAO

Those lefty democrats, I tell you!

I admit that I read the New York Post. Why? Because the New York Times does not cover local news anymore. Unless it first their overarching political framework. Boy, I miss the Metro Section with its wonderful home stories.

I'm not OP but both of those papers are terrible.

I do see R47's point - the old gray lady NYT is terrible about local news.

R46 That article is an example of the NYPost doing what a newspaper is supposed to do: reporting the news.

in that article, please tell us what is false in their reporting

R42 r44 r45 r46

R50, why do you even bother to ignore if you want to read what they say?

We need to ban the cunt who blocks everyone then wants to read what we have to say. What a fucking idiot.

R51 r52

r52, when you see a troll leave just a reply number, FF them and then block them.

Can we please ban links to TikTok?

and Instagram?

and Twitter?

and whatever else I don't like?

[quote] You don't get to set bans on any news media outlet whose "slant" you don't like, especially not here.

You know full well that links are forbidden here all the time, so some owner/employee sure as fuck gets to ban links on here.

[quote]Do fuck off and head back to Sunshine Sachs' office.

If the webmaster gave a single solitary fuck about this place, he'd ban you crazy bitches for good. Now that Primetime is over, every time I go into a thread, no matter what the topic, someone is being accused of being Meghan Markle's PR.

R52, it's Gap Playlist Guy. He does it on purpose. He knows how to look up posts in the ignored tab but he won't do it.

I think he's why we don't get notifications that someone responded to you anymore. I used to get 100 notifications a day that were nothing but him replying "R#" because he had me on ignore but still wanted to read what I said. I don't get notifications about replies anymore at all now.

OP, the DM has long been the DL paper of record. They make up for their crap "journalism" with an abundance of photos, most of which you don't see in other publications. They are cunty and crass and shady. What's not to like? Also they do get the occasional decent (albeit horribly written) "exclusive" that gives us something to sink our claws into.

If you don't like it, scroll on by.

People are allowed to have ethical objections to a newspaper that regularly prints rightwing propaganda, r58.

If you don't like THAT, then how about YOU scroll on by? None of you "scroll on by" bitches ever take your own advice, I've noticed.

Pro tip: Read a new story and use that criitical thinking you learned in college.

r59 Settle down, Beavis.

[quote]Are you the great Banholio?

Old men and their dad jokes are embarrassing. Yikes.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Daily Mail gets pictures and info that we don't see in the regular US media. They are so pushy and shameless they stop at nothing to get the deets, and I appreciate them for it. Especially when it comes to true crime stories.

[quote]never see any ads on the DM or anywhere, I just don't get when people complain about seeing any ads or pop ups. If you see ads you deserve to see ads.

They are boomer fattards who don't know what an adblocker is.

“People are allowed to have ethical objections to a newspaper that regularly prints rightwing propaganda, [R58].

If you don't like THAT, then how about YOU scroll on by? None of you "scroll on by" bitches ever take your own advice, I've noticed. R59”

Totally R59. Now take your own advice and if you don’t like what is posted ,scroll on by. I am sick of the repressive extreme Left Wing, for whom everything should be cancelled. I am sick of near Communists telling me how tolerant they are.

See how that works ? Call everyone who disagrees with you a Fascist let’s start by calling out Stalinist infiltration of Datalounge z if it works for the goose , it works for the gander. If we can’t be tolerant of others views let’s just call everyone the most extreme we can think of and hope it will stick. After all that would be at least three quarters of the” everyone is a Russian, troll, fascist, Nazi. They don’t actually believe that, because frankly 90% have never met a Nazi. Why ? Because Nazisim died with their Leader on 1945 and the last ones are dead or dying.

What we have here is just a group of children screaming because they haven’t got their own way. Enough of being nice and passive. I don’t want to be bullied anymore.

90% of us are other Gays and Lesbians who would be considered Centre Left , but the extremism of some of you makes everyone slightly Right of Atilla the Hun, if they don’t support some of the extreme claims made on here.

Play nicely and we will all do it. Don’t throw your toys out of the pram and then preach that you are the only tolerant ones in the room. Pack of bullies.

No one sensible takes the Daily Mail seriously. It's fun for a laugh and great for the pictures. One might as well get worked up over the Golden Girls.

[quote]Daily Mail gets pictures and info that we don’t see in the regular US media

Exactly R64. They can tell you what someone ate for breakfast three Sundays ago.

R65, adblock doesn't work for all sites.

I need to know who has “slim pins,” who’s looking “relaxed” (fat).

Intelligent people with critical thinking skills can analyze bias themselves. And it's hypocritical to claim only right-wing news paper have an agenda. I guarantee any newspaper that cover politics has some sort of agenda/bias. Associated Press would be my bet on the most neutral with a slight left bias.

And the only threads I see consistently greyed by Muriel are the ones that call out trans bullshit and the Markle threads. So what does that say about Muriel's/DL's bias and agenda?

I like AP, but suspect its bias is more than slightly left. I doubt many Trump voters look to AP for news.

R59, R53

Daily Mail is too much fun. It's trashy and often has an agenda, but it's too entertaining to ban. Great for gossip, especially in their snarky compliments to celebs making an ass of themselves.

The Mail allows us to re-use their pictures. All the others have paywalls.

I get a laugh out of the articles (and especially the comment section of Daily Mail). OP lighten up Francis.

If OP only wants serious sources maybe they shouldn't be on a gossip site?

R24 is correct.

Rather shocking how all these tired old queens on DL and others elsewhere go on about NYP, Daily Mail, etc.. when NYT is just as tedious with their editorial biases.

Will say Daily Fail is often streets ahead of coverage about local events in USA than NYT, NYP, Daily News and other media.

Leave us not forget NYP and other local news media kept mum and or largely supported Iraq War II and events leading up to how that hot mess came to pass. Meanwhile Daily Mail and other international news media told things exactly as they were.

NYT wouldn't issue an apology for their bias coverage of Iraq invasion and war until years after things died down.

The Turpin family, remember the parents who kept all those kids tied up and prisoners in their home? Daily Mail actually had the best updates and articles about it.

Now I ask you, where else are you gong to find hard hitting journalism about things that matter to New Yorkers?

For those who don't live here, many of the stories NYP (and Daily News for that matter) cover are issues that more New Yorkers care about. This opposed to the la-di-da NYT with its constant focus on shoving whatever version of "equality", "inclusion", and other progressive liberal politics down people's throats.

r71, "Muriel" doesn't gray out much of anything. Those threads get grayed out because people have put the OP on ignore and FFed them enough times that the thread gets grayed out. However, if you knew how to change your settings, you'd never see anything grayed out at all until it got to the redtag stage.

You guys are always claiming that Muriel is out to get you, even frequently saying Muriel is a rabid trans activist or trans herself, often saying she's being paid by pro trans lobbyists (who you often claim are Jewish, I notice). If anyone at DL or Mediapolis was actually paying attention to you, that shit would get you all banned ASAP. The last time Erna/MPC was a regular on here was before he went off on some holiday weekend, insisting Mediapolis was a money laundering CIA operation secretly located in Iowa. They banned him so hard after that it almost stuck.

The same would happen to you, too, if anyone at Mediapolis even knew you were here. But they don't. Don't flatter yourself that a moderator is graying you out, it's users and the automated moderation system. People just don't like you.

That's true, r69. I can't get to DM on Edge or Chrome without disabling Adblock and I'm not going to do it. I can get to DM on Firefox but the page is broken half the time, mainly in that photos won't show up.

NY Post has definitely gone tabloid and throwing in their Anti Biden Rants. It is losing viewers...

[quote] And like most true NYers do, I read both the NYTimes and the NYPost

Correct.

R28 - Gosh, you think?!

This thread is probably being pushed by one of the many trolls who hate the UK tabloids because of their hostility to the Sussexes.

I wouldn't be surprised if it had been opened by our very own dear Pet Troll, trying to cut off criticism of the SXSs by cutting off access to the DM, which throws continuous shade at the couple. The NY POST, coincidentally, put up a huge and mocking article on the Sussex's phony quasi-royal tour of New York last week.

If you think the mention of those two papers, specifically, is a coincidence, think again. Both papers threw massive shade at the Sussex's TIME Magazine appearance and their phony "tour" of New York City last week.

This is a closet attempt to close down access to media and articles that dare to criticise the Sussexes, but without mentioning the Sussexes, so it looks like liberal outrage instead of what it is - an attempt to limit negative opinions on the Sussexes.

You may have many posters here fooled, Pet dear, but not all of us.

[quote]Totally R59. Now take your own advice and if you don’t like what is posted ,scroll on by. I am sick of the repressive extreme Left Wing, for whom everything should be cancelled. I am sick of near Communists telling me how tolerant they are.

This is so fucking stupid. Buddy, I never gave that advice, that was someone else. I've never told anyone to just scroll past something they don't like.

There is actually a reason I don't advise people to just scroll on by, and that's because Datalounge is specifically designed to make it very difficult to ignore something, so I don't think people should waste their time on trying to ignore or scroll past or whatever. DL doesn't want you to, don't give yourself a headache trying too hard, it's not worth it.

Take you, for instance. You're a dipshit of the highest caliber, calling everyone "Left Wing extremists" and "Communists" like that's a normal thing to do. I have you on ignore because you're worthless. DL still tells me every time you reply to me, like you did here, because they want me to respond to you. Responding to useless pieces of feces like you gives DL free content to put RealJock ads on, even though RealJock went out of business ages ago.

I'll let them "win" this round and respond to you like they want, because I think it's useful for people to know how DL operates.

Here is the link to the POST article last week.

R86 - This is only disguised as leftwing outrage. It actually isn't..

The two papers selected for objection have one thing in common over the last two weeks. See my post at R85.

It's clever but not clever enough. It's too bad so many DLers have fallen for the bait, thinking this is a leftwing fanatic trying to repress rightwing propaganda. It isn't.

Yeah, well, the DailyMail and NYPost have a certain value, too.

It takes a special, delicious kind of crazy to assume that love of Harry and Meghan drive, well, anything.

Maybe, just maybe, it's the Post's history of lies? Maybe it's disgust at the Murdoch Empire's hand in undermining democracy in whatever countries it operates in?

Maybe it's being done with the facile view that the Post is harmless but cute? Maybe it's the equally dimwitted view that the Times and the Post are two sides of the same coin? Sorta like how some idiots think Fox and MSNBC are the same thing but just opposite?

I'm reminded of the way that poisonous monster Roy Cohn was feted by Manhattan high society for years and giggled at as a kind of fascinating mascot, while maliciously ruining lives. Manhattan society matrons bearded for him for years while he publicly gay-bashed anyone he perceived as his enemy and secretly died of AIDS. That kind of moral emptiness doesn't fly any more.

Neither does yours.

R90 is right, we should only allow posts from Daily Kos, Vox, and Huffington Post. I'm so sick of these "other" points of view and different ideas. People need to be reeducated in the correct way of thinking.

There are "other points of view" and then there's malicious, fascist lies. I would love it if there was a right-wing media outlet that wasn't a cesspit of racism and immigrant paranoia.

It's not my fault the English-speaking right-wing has gone completely crazy.

r92, you do realize that the right (and many in the center) think it's the left, and left-wing media, that has gone completely crazy, turning into a cesspit of racism and gender woo-woo.

Again, who takes the point of view of any right wing rag seriously? And you can't govern stupid.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

This freak troll @r88 has to bring up Meghan Markle 45 times a day to reach the quota.

"DM is so jammed full of land mine ads that it’s unusable. And forget trying to scroll."

All you have to do is download an ad block browser like BRAVE. It's free and you'll find reading the DM quite a bit easier.

R96 - Right, it's just a coincidence that OP wants to ban two of the most notoriously hostile to the Sussexes papers on the planet., both of whom ran negative stories about their absurd trip to NYC last week and that farcical TIME 100 cover.

I confess that I go to the Daily Fail for pix on big stories. Award shows best and worst dressed and celebrity home sales. But there is some guy named Piers I believe who is vile.

The NY Post editorial side sucks, but it’s still a must-read for most New Yorkers, if only for Page Six.

If R93 thinks the NY Times is "left wing" and committed to "woo woo" (whatever the fuck that means), then he's gone over the edge into Fox-OANN-Crazytown.

(PS - no one in the US uses the phrase 'woo woo'. For the life of me, I can't figure out when people who live in another country would care so much about US politics as to hate-post about them on the DL)

I always assumed that the DailyMail could see that an IP address was American and ‘curated’ American content for those viewers. I don’t know why the front page stories I see would be of any interest to the British. I assume a British viewer would get a lead story about something Boris Johnson is doing.

But what do I know.

R100, I am American. But you believe what you want to, it’s still a (mostly) free country and freedom of religion is still respected.

If you're an American, then you're a million years old since no one's said "woo woo" in conversation since like 1927.

And what the fuck religion has to do with thinking Rupert Murdoch is a pernicious evil I have no idea.

NYPost yes but the Daily Mail is the best for celebrity gossip.

[quote]They are cunty and crass and shady.

And that's why the DailyMail is DL's hometown newspaper.

[quote] If you're an American, then you're a million years old since no one's said "woo woo" in conversation since like 1927.

I beg your pardon.

I like the Post for juicy stories about very rich people divorcing and the sleazy hi jinx that entails (destroyed Warhol's! New young wife's face on a midtown building!

How can you not like the NYPost?

R69 UBlock Origin works for all sites, you must not know what you're doing. I see no ads anywhere.

Maybe because they make shit up?

[Quote] If you're an American, then you're a million years old since no one's said "woo woo" in conversation since like 1927.

Telling that your response is to insult rather than enquire as to why people on the right, the center, or, like myself, disaffected and despairing liberals might perceive the modern left as obsessed with race and pontificating an ideology regarding gender that has less basis in reality than creationism does to the origin of life.

I will control Datalounge... I WILL! And... and I'll make the biggest goddamn explosion this world's every seen! SNAP!

The tabloids: read 'em for the showbiz gossip and ignore the politics.

I feel like insulting your nonsense is more fun since everything about you, R111, is a complete lie.

Nice thesaurus though.

R110 that’s why these rags are not even fun for gossip because you can’t trust them. Everything is a lie or an agenda or a smear. Stop trying to make it out to be a fun gossip site when it’s not. There is always someone’s agenda behind every article. That is why the rag exists. Not to entertain. They probably lose money but still get to control the right-wing narrative.

Happy reading!

Please, r114, tell me what I am lying about?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Ahem, "excerpts"

DM is too buggy for me. The only time I even attempt to look at is during the annual Ainsbury(?) Race day when all the fair English flowers attend in all their whorish, fake tanned finery and get publicly soused.

R115 The Mail is the most-read paper in Britain.

Eat it.

R115 - There's also an agenda behind every article the NY TIMES prints, and behind every article The GUARDIAN prints.

"Katie: Going Nowhere"

Liar/propagandist @r121

Do not engage.

Hmm what was the agenda behind the Times running story after story about Hillary's emails? Whitewater was basically a NY Times constructed scandal. They do story after story about "Dems in Disarray" and how the "Dems on Capitol Hill Can't Get it Together." The current headline is "Biden Struggles to Unite Party."

They may be right about all this, but to assert that they support Democrats in the same way Murdoch properties support Republicans (and, specifically, Trump) is just madness. It's just a pure lie.

R123 - Sure sure sure sweetheart. Why, the Guardian wouldn't even know the meaning of the word "agenda".

And the TIMES? The only person lying here is you. The TIMES has made it clear that the paper is fucking OBSESSED with race.

It doesn't even pretend any longer to balance as the country's "paper of record".

Re the Guardian:

"The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion, and its reputation as a platform for social liberal and left-wing editorial has led to the use of "Guardian reader" and "Guardianista" as often-pejorative epithets for those of left-leaning or "politically correct" tendencies."

The Guardian fired a longtime columnist a couple of months ago for insisting that biology actually means something, after 300 complaints from its staff of snowflakes.

You can check the link below from YouGov. The Guardian is seen as Britain's most leftwing newspaper.

You should try research before hurling childish insults.

The Times belongs to Rupert Murdoch.

"DM is so jammed full of land mine ads that it’s unusable. And forget trying to scroll."

I'm using Firefox with the UBlock Origin plug-in and see no ads on DM or the NY Post NY Times, Guardian, etc. Makes the internet 1000% better. I also use the Privacy Badger plug-in to prevent tracking cookies.

I agree, the Daily Mail is almost unnavigable.

[quote]There's also an agenda behind every article the NY TIMES prints, and behind every article The GUARDIAN prints.

True.

I use Privacy Badger and AdGuard and the Daily Mail is perfectly usable.

If you don't read the DM today, you'll miss finding out all about the blue plaque put up on Princess Diana's Earl Court flat!

Exactly. I didn't read that in my neatly pressed copy of Properly Centre Left.

You'll also miss out on seeing me with my new beau!

Yes, R125 is seeking "balance" on matters of race. So let's ask for OpEds from the Klan! Or maybe R125 could put on his armband and come up with something!

The NY POST has gone full on Anti Biden with their recent online "revamp". Yes I know who owns the NY Post but they were not this blatant. Every day it is multiple stories and "opinion" pieces.

Well that's the problem all Dem presidents will face (assuming there is one after Biden). The right-wing press will go apeshit against them - making up lies, creating controversies out of nothing and screaming that the "mainstream media" won't cover this or that hunk of bullshit they're currently wetting their panties over.

Meanwhile the actual media, afraid of seeming biased, will not turn around and fawn over the new President, but will probe and be skeptical and will want to seem fair (as if that will impress the racist kooks who fucking go to Fake Mayberry on their vacation).

So a R pres will get 50% bad press but a Dem pres will get 100% bad press.

R128, I use the same and frequently don't see photos on DM pages. They show back up if I disable Adblock for that session. Have you not had that problem? I'm asking honestly, I'm trying to figure out why this happens to me when so many on DL say that they have no problem with DM working with Adblock or similar extensions.

Brave circumvents the We See You're Using An Ad Blocker message

I haven't had a single problem with that since downloading Brave.

[quote] Meanwhile the actual media, afraid of seeming biased, will not turn around and fawn over the new President

Oh, my sides!

R140 cherry-picking a lite article from the fucking day Biden was inaugurated.

Please tell me how Fox would have treated Trump if *he had pulled all our troops out of Afghanistan? How did CBS and ABC and NBC treat Biden? How did Fox treat Trump after the debacle of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico?

Current NY Times headline "Divisions Imperil Biden Agenda." Current Washington Post: "Biden Sticks to Timeline with Little Tangible Results." Current NBCNews.com headlines are "Dems in disarray," "Crisis at the Border" and Britney Spears.

Fuck you and your sides, asshole.

Same R138. I am running Ublock, Adblock Plus, Privacy Badger and HTTPS Everywhere and I never see ads...except on the DM. About a year ago it simply stopped loading if I didn't disable my adblocking for their site - which I shamefully and duly did. I'm going to try this Brave app and see what happens because the DM really is egregious with their ads (rubbing my weakness for gossip in my face).

You know what the weird thing is? Yes, the right wing press are terrible. Really, seriously, affecting-the-outcome-of-elections-and-more TERRIBLE. The DM comment section generally makes me fucking despair. But the left is so, so, so useless at countering it. Politically, in the media, social media, individuals, the left seems lost and neutered and I am so sick of "ban it" as a response. You know why I read the DM? Because the comments usually aren't moderated. You can get a feel, there, for what the people really think (even if what the people really think is fucking stupid and self-destructive). The Guardian, which I also read every day, almost always turns comments off entirely on anything that might even be slightly controversial. It's cowardly and it shows the left as unable to deal not just with dissent but with even mild questioning from their own side. I cannot stand this "agree with us on everything or you're a nazi" stance. It's such bullshit and the only side it hurts is the left.

Ban the DM and the Post? Fuck off. Really. Fuck off.

I agree, left or right, the comments section will rob you of all hope. But either have none or all, don't pick and choose. It's weak.

Well said, R143.

There's a difference between "dissent" and "a pile on of rape threats and racist memes."

We shouldn’t have to be subjected to constant right-wing propaganda everyday at all times. The constant bombardment is just too much. Especially after you had almost a week away from it. You really see how much psychological damage it can do.

Then power down, R147. The world owes you nothing. The rest of us are tougher stuff with working brains. What a baby.

[quote]The constant bombardment is just too much. Especially after you had almost a week away from it.

Seriously, and it calls into question why anyone is even bothering to do this, because when we had that week without unpaid posters, it became REALLY obvious that there just aren't many real people on this site. Spamming us with constant rightwing propaganda is a huge waste of time. There are more trolls here than normal people, so who are these trolls trying to convince? Each other?

Who knew the troll operation was so robust? It was so clear during that week. It’s astonishing and super depressing.

People that think this is normal or acceptable have been beaten down. It’s not normal or something you should accept. Don’t lower yourself like that or you do the work for them.

Yes MAGA choads and Trumplickers are made of TOUGH STUFF. They melt down over fucking 74 starving Afghani refugees or a fucking mask mandate. You right wing cocksuckers wet your panties over the tiniest fucking thing.

The only time you seem to be able to get a hardon is when you think you're ruining the life of a powerless (preferably female) liberal.

Why is having a different opinion trolling? Why do we have to be subjected to a constant Left Wing litany of “ You can’t “. I thought we fought for Gay Rights so we could he equal. I had no idea it was to push others down.

I want to hear other opinions. I want to know what others think. If you stifle speech , do you think that is going to stifle thought?

When my Mum didn’t want me to be Gay, so stopped talking about it, didn’t stop me from being Gay. So how the actual fuck do you believe you can control people?

First of all, you didn't fucking fight for gay rights.

Second of all, you dumb, whiny right-wing cocksuckers (who are made of TOUGH STUFF!!!) wet your pants when someone maybe suggests your constant barrage of right-wing propaganda from evil right-wing media outlets is tiring on a gay message board and perhaps its time to give it a fucking rest.

You fascists want to be pitied and feared at the same time. It's weird.

r155, how do you know an anonymous poster on DL did or did not fight for gay rights? Many of the individuals who did, in fact, fight for gay rights are now finding a more accepting home on the center right than they are from the left.

As the hinges part further from the frame, certain DLers need to decide who a poster is, in addition to disagreeing with them.

Many people who did, in fact, fight for gay rights are now dead of AIDS, you dumb cocksucking Nazi troll.

I would be willing to bet the mortgage that a dumb, cocksucking Nazi troll who's all CONCERNED about LIBERAL CANCEL CULTURE didn't lift a goddam finger to fight for anyone's rights. Except maybe his own right to have second helpings of cake at the buffet.

Look r155 the only thing you can hope to have common on a Gay website is that most people on here are Gay or Gay friendly. That is it. Nothing else can be expected. Your self absorbed “ Everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a bigot” is not only bullshit and controlling , it is frankly doomed to failure.

Stop murdering language. No one on here is a fucking fascist or a Nazi. Do you actually fucking know what the dictionary definition of those words are? When you actually are ever confronted by real Fascists, what are you going to call them? Will anyone actually believe you, because you have used the term so often it has lost all meaning?

At the end of the day you have missed your calling in Stalinist Russia. Unfortunately for you Stalin hated Gays, so like many Communist countries you would have found yourself Gulag or dead. See how you can murder language? Let’s all be extreme like you. Sure that won’t lead to anything bad.

It's hysterical that you're all upset that someone's MURDERING LANGUAGE and then you trot out Stalinism. Whatever. You're self-pitying nonsense will keep you company once your dreams come true and the Republicans run everything. There'll be elections except you can choose between big-business monsters and flat-out Nazis.

But at least you won't have to deal with SELF-ABSORPTION!!

Your poor thing.

R160 Seriously I am not American you fuckhead. But then I am the fuckhead really because I keep forgetting Americans don’t do sarcasm. I fucking used Stalinism to show how absurd it was to call everyone Fascist. You just throw words out there. That was my point. Giving you a taste of your own medicine.But it failed, because you are so absolutely wedded to the idea that there are only Republican Fascists on here and you are some soldier fighting on the beaches of Normandy against the Nazis.

You need to seriously get a life.

[quote]and you are some soldier fighting on the beaches of Normandy against the Nazis.

LOL.

Example of bias and agenda at the NY Times:

Right-wing garbage is not a political stance. It’s propaganda and garbage and everything is a lie.

Obama is not a Muslim and Hillary is not a pedophile. Stop trying to equate that with The NY Times or Washington post.

R164, can you provide links to articles in the NY Post or the Daily Mail claiming either of those assertions you mentioned?

Conservatives are trying to strip gays of their rights so if you want to be gay and conservative then you are a sick individual. But these trolls aren’t gay. They give it away.

“if you want to be gay and conservative then you are a sick individual. But these trolls aren’t gay. They give it away.”r166

Was there a Club Gay I could choose to join when I was growing up? I think I was too busy with the Mickey Mouse one and I didn’t have to worry BECAUSE I AM GAY !!. Didn’t have to join that one I am that.

Look tbh I am not American. Politics plays such an unimportant place in my life that it would not make the top 20 about things about me. But then, to most people ,I think outside the US politics does not drive every conversation or action. Perhaps because in most cases extremes of both Parties do not exist. They both believe in Gay Rights, Women’s Rights etc. on the Environment they both try to out do each other, so it really becomes an incredibly boring conversation, like discussing Cricket for an hour, my eyes glaze over.

In America it is different. But I firmly believe that most Gay People on here are not extreme Fascists. But the conversation has devolved so badly that if you hold certain views it must seem everyone is out to get you, hence you may feel overwhelmed.

[quote] Many of the individuals who did, in fact, fight for gay rights are now finding a more accepting home on the center right than they are from the left.

Many? "Most" would be more accurate. See posters like R158 for why.

Name one. Just one.

I'm not a MAGA choad, R153. I hate MAGA choads, and agree with your opinion of them. But you're playing right into the troll's game (if you're not one yourself - one thing I've noticed about trolls of any stripe is that their tone is always 'universally and completely outraged') if you label those who mostly agree with you politically as nazis and Trumpists. Truth is I'm pretty much a bleeding heart liberal. I just don't think we need to ban links to certain papers because I read those papers and have enough of an ability to think for myself that they don't magically turn me into an immigrant-hating Brexiteer 2 minutes in. Certain factions of the left screaming bloody murder the minute anyone dares to differ from the party line even slightly plays so conveniently into right wing talking points that I'm genuinely not convinced it not some kind of massive op.

In the meantime, tho, I still want to read what people want to link to, and I don't want to be fucking babysat or protected from the Daily Mail.

No one's suggesting a babysitting service, dear. It is the mark of the MAGA choad that their typical reaction is one of hysterical overstatement.

A mask mandate or a vaccine mandate is the precursor for CONCENTRATION CAMPS!! Immigration portends the ERASURE OF WHITE PEOPLE!!!! Teaching the truth about racism in America is an ATTACK ON WHITE AMERICA!! Gun control measures are THE END OF AMERICAN FREEDOM!!!

So too is the reaction here to the suggestion that we cool it on the constant barrage of links and stories from two notorious purveyors of right-wing lies and propaganda. THAT'S STALINISM!!! WE'RE TOUGH AND DON'T NEED CENSORSHIP!!!

No one is trying to ban the Post or the Daily Mail. But maybe the DL would be better if half the fucking threads on here weren't links to these shit sites.

Threads that, i would note, become a snake pit of neo-Nazi lies and white-panic apocalyptic hysteria.

Stop clutching your pearls, Margaret. If you love the Post, go read it. Some of us here on the DL are tired of their shit.

It's a statement of where we are that some people propose banning and censorship over critical thought.

It's so interesting. I've given the Post and the Daily Mail some critical thought, and they should be banned.

[quote]No one is trying to ban the Post or the Daily Mail. But maybe the DL would be better if half the fucking threads on here weren't links to these shit sites.

So what you're saying is: no one is trying to ban the Post and the Daily Mail ...but let's ban the Post and the Daily Mail.

I think the idea is to ban the constant sharing of links on the DL. Not, you know, the publications themselves.

If you want vapid celebrity gossip and white-panic paranoia, you can easily go to the source.

Exactly. Go to the source. Someone said upthread that they are news aggregators. So you don’t even have to go to them at all. Drudge too. Just go to yahoo or another aggregator because they have the same articles.

It's the same pearl-clutching self-pitying panic the right wing became engulfed by when some statues of slave owners got torn down. "WE'RE DESTROYING HISTORY!!!!! WE'RE ERASING THE PAST!!!! THE LEFT WANTS TO BAN THINGS THEY DON'T LIKE!!!!"

1. Calm down, dear.

2. These thoughts and ideas and whatnot aren't 'erased.' They're quite easily accessible. If you have a burning hatred of Meghan Markle and a burning hatred of immigrants (these may be linked!) then there's plenty of stuff for you. Maybe some of us really fucking hate it and are sick of it and won't put up with it shoved in our faces any more.

Unfortunately, banning the links won't do any good because Yahoo aggregates almost everything directly from the sources, and plenty of the trolls on here use those Google redirect links to hide where they're really linking to. Banning wouldn't matter.

But the truth is that our trolls are CONSTANTLY posting from the Post and DM and TMZ, and there's a reason for that. All these defenses of those kinds of websites are disingenuous. They are the kind of tabloids that would make sure their front page caused a furor every day by saying crazy shit that people would see as they walked down the street or stood in line at the store. These days they do the same thing, just online, and they do it with a rightwing agenda.

I wonder where the tears of the Free Speech Warriors are about not having a Defund the Police Black Lives Matter Radical on the editorial board of the NY Post.

I was told that the Right was the home of Free Thinkers and they were made of Tough Stuff and don't censor things like Liberal Fascists.

Ok so I assume Roxanne Gay is getting a show on Fox News. Right?

[quote] I wonder where the tears of the Free Speech Warriors are about not having a Defund the Police Black Lives Matter Radical on the editorial board of the NY Post.

Huh?

Maybe we should ban all sources and posters except the OP himself.

He can just talk back and forth to himself on this forum--that's clearly what he really wants.

[quote]No one is trying to ban the Post or the Daily Mail.

*glances at thread title*

I support BLM in a general sense, love immigrants, dislike Meghan Markle and her husband, and think Roxane Gay is a troll.

If we ban links to the Daily Mail, how the hell am I going to find out who flaunted their toned pins at the beach?

R138 said; "I use the same and frequently don't see photos on DM pages. They show back up if I disable Adblock for that session. Have you not had that problem? I'm asking honestly, I'm trying to figure out why this happens to me when so many on DL say that they have no problem with DM working with Adblock or similar extensions."

I can't speak for other users, but I am using an older version of Firefox. One of the major Firefox updates limited my ability to use a plugin to get past paywalls, so I rolled back to version 81 on my laptop and 68 on Android and turned off auto-update on both devices. (This is supposed to be a security risk, but it works for me.)

Well if BANNING links from the DL means that we're in STALINIST'S RUSSIA and that LIBERAL FASCISTS want to end free speech and that right wingers want to hear from all sides and aren't afraid of debate because they're made of TOUGH STUFF, then why is the editorial board of the NY Post all old white conservatives?

Where are the BLM defund the police POCs? Why is the NY Post so afraid of DEBATE??

Maybe wet your panties on them for a week and leave us alone.

Thank you r185, I'll try rolling back to an older version and see what happens.

Does typing every other word in CAPS mean you're posting from a Russian troll farm?

YES!

R187, if you are the poster who said " I am running Ublock, Adblock Plus, Privacy Badger and HTTPS Everywhere and I never see ads...except on the DM." then consider disabling AdBlock Plus.

UBlock Origin and Adblock Plus serve the same purpose and you don't need both of them. Adblock Plus started got shitty when they decided to take payoffs from advertisers and to let so-called 'acceptable ads be displayed. ABP allows non-graphical ads and I. find Google search results unusable without UBlock Origin. See the Controversy section in the wikipedia article on ABP.

No, but you can not click on them if you are not inclined.

Who here thinks the Daily Mail or the New York Post are great newspapers? Who looks to these for political news and guidance? Who pays to subscribe to them? Who thinks Rupert Murdock is a charming if sometimes understood man?

Fucking nobody.

However where the other newspapers make you pay beyond the first paragraph, or give you a cheesy Alamy generic photo of the South Carolina flag instead of many photos of that murderous Murdaugh clan, these two shit-rags go all in with lurid coverage of lurid crimes, rich with photos you won't find elsewhere. If Robbie Williams and his Holland Park neighbor Jimmy Page have a spat over the nuisance of renovation construction, the DM will go all in with pages and pages of history of the two (splendid and important) houses in question, paying to republish archival photos of their 19thC interiors and interviewing interior designers past, present, and not hired to trash Williams' horrible taste.

The Daily Mail and the New York Post do lesser and trashy stories stories well. Incidentally the kind of stories where Mr. Murdock's biases don't show throw; they tend to get the details right in a story and throw resources at doing them well. The stuff that becomes threads in DL is the stuff that often enough is well covered by these newspapers and not by others.

That, I suspect, is why people link to those articles, not to show their political support to a newspaper to which they don't even subscribe.

There aren't maneee storeeeez in the Post where Murdock's biases don't show throw.

[quote]However where the other newspapers make you pay beyond the first paragraph, or give you a cheesy Alamy generic photo of the South Carolina flag instead of many photos of that murderous Murdaugh clan, these two shit-rags go all in with lurid coverage of lurid crimes, rich with photos you won't find elsewhere. If Robbie Williams and his Holland Park neighbor Jimmy Page have a spat over the nuisance of renovation construction, the DM will go all in with pages and pages of history of the two (splendid and important) houses in question, paying to republish archival photos of their 19thC interiors and interviewing interior designers past, present, and not hired to trash Williams' horrible taste.

This is very much it. And for celeb gossip lovers (and honestly why the fuck are you here if you're so above a little celeb goss?) nobody has the 1000 photos of Celebrity X at the beach or stumbling out of the club or strutting the red carpet as the Daily Mail. NOBODY. That shitrag is the King, Queen and Emperor of celeb coverage and I have no idea why anyone even bothers with various bought-and-paid-for gossip websites anymore.

Twitter has stolen the DM's thunder when it comes to celeb gossip and pix. And no one in America cares about whether the sixth reject from Strictly or last season's round three loser from Pop Idol Ireland is dressing too sexy.

Meanwhile, while gorging on meaningless shit like that, you're also scooping up Thatcherite immigrant paranoia.

I loathe Margaret Thatcher and what she did to the UK. I am also pro-immigration and pro-immigrant and think Brexit was an act of national near-suicide. I have never and will never vote for any right wing candidate.

And yes, it's meaningless shit, but it's entertainingly meaningless (to me, no one is obliged to share my personal meaningless shit tastes) and *you're here too,* R194. You're on a website that explicitly bills itself as a place for meaningless shit.

I'm on Twitter but find most users insufferable.

No one's saying you can't read the Daily Mail religiously while proclaiming your Marxist bonafides but maybe the trolls who start a thread on here based on every dull, shitty article [SCOOP!!! MEGHAN MARKLE, A BITCH, WEARS PANTS!!!!] can give it a rest.

[quote] There aren't maneee storeeeez in the Post where Murdock's biases don't show throw

There aren't many stories in the Guardian where their biases don't show through.

Such as?

R198

Male roads kill females.

An op-ed from 2 years ago? Ok....

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Yes, I couldn't think of another reason anyone would dislike it.