review r.

(bbc.com doesn; t exist. It's bbc.co.uk)

Oh gosh... it's 'The Public'. We'll have none of that here.

It's the BBC. It's an institution. It's funded in a UNIQUE way. Don't question it.

Intro

Once upon a time, there was the BBC. And it was the only thing available. And people looked upon it, and didn't know any different. It did TV, and radio. Then the internet was invented, and the BBC had several long meetings. And decided it should have an internet presents.

Someone told them it was a presence' not presents, and they had several more long meetings, and decided that they should have an internet presence, not presents.

The BBC traditionally does other stuff apart from the internet, but this online thing is becoming quite popular. The beeb hasn't really figured out how to do audience participation (nor does it want to), altho it's news site does look lovely and dull. (this is an organisation that has 30 minutes of meetings everyday to decide how to be cool)

Background

The BBC is: severely up it's own a___ (UIOA). The BBC makes the most interesting or potentially exciting articles tedious, so you click back' after the first couple of paragraphs. It would be useful for the Beeb to have a time monitor on it's pages. Not to see how many clicks an article gets, but to see how soon after the click, the reader gives up reading and clicks back'.

You are not good enough for the BBC. It is the BBC's job to educate you from your current pleb level. Unless you're retired, in which case you're better than other people, and may be good enough for the BBC. The BBC is a safe space for you to learn about the dangerous parts of this world. Such as "slang", and "the internet".

The BBC

Parts of the BBC are loosing the plot as seemingly per the media industry (depending on how much attention you pay to the media industry'). But they are the mee dee arr, pinch of salt etc.

They are funded by the government. The money comes from you, but the penalty for not paying is prison, and the government ensures the prison. So the BBC is funded by the government. Paid for by you, but ensured by the government. That means the BBC won't say anything nasty about the government, because then, the government say "oh no, we're not guaranteeing your income". The gov't also won't abolish the license tax fee, because then the BBC won't say nice things abut the gov't. You scratch my bank account, I scratch yours.

(moderately) Left wing that looks like right wing. A supposedly free love' organisation, that has a pristine sensible image.The opposite of the Daily Mail. The Savile episode may be relevent for the fact that aunty is not as comfortable a relative as you might think. Moderately left wing, but slightly less irritating than the left-wing Huffngton Post, which shadowcensors *

*shadowban/shadowcensor=log out, check your comment is still visible (anywhere on the net)

The BBC is keen to point out that things you thought were crap, aren't crap. The BBC defines this as 'opening your mind'. It's also called being liberal'.

Lots of sentences the BBC prints, seem to be directed at people who have absolutely no idea what is going on, and have zero knowledge of anything to do with the article they just clicked on. Eg. Caption on an online article: "social networks have faced criticism". I might write an article for the BBC. It will be a long, "in depth", moderately unreadable article on the Amazon rainforest. At the end it'll have a picture of a tree. With the caption: "this is a tree".

The BBC's news flavour is sanguine. That's what you get when you know your income is guaranteed, and not dependent on adverts, sales, or program quality. "It's ok. Everything is ok. We've got our money, so it's ok".

Comments

On the majority of news sites, the only decent information comes from user comments. There is a reason that on the BBC you are only able to comment on around 10% of the articles. That would mean. Allowing, THE PUBLIC you, the great unwashed to air their views. And that just gets messy, and is definitely not inline with the image the BBC wants to portray. YES, you pay for it, but god, no, don't Have Your Say'. On some of the HYS's (which are a nightmare to navigate around, being BBC standard', and not like'normal message boards'. And apparently You' is You, which is tricky if someone else decides to have the username of You'.) half the comments have been removed due to breaking the house rules'.

The BBC website DOES:
-tell you when a comment has been deleted, unlike the daily mail, where there is no trace.

The BBC website DOESN'T:
-let you comment on the majority of articles, and is also strict in that you can't submit a comment to an article, where the comment is about a different article
-allow you to find your own comments. Go figure. (the bbc would never condone anything as crude as say. Being able to find how upvoted/downvoted your OWN posts are)

Why is the BBC stricter on non-article related comments, while the DM is generally more leniant? Well, the BBC has it's income guaranteed by the government (essentially a public-owned service). The DM relies on user engagement' to sell it's product. The BBC news site is also popular with retired types, who have more time and are more inclined to report "non house rule" comments (the BBC is popular with old people. This may be because, older people want to FEEL that their news source is reliable, whether it is or not. They don't want to have the effort of wondering if they should question it. Varied user comments would unsettle them)

If you're quick enough to have read them before they are removed, you'll realise that most of them are normal conversation, which the beeb deems to beer"not up to standard" for their site. If you see them before they are removed, they are basically the good parts of a conversation down the pub. The pub is terribly' low-brow, though, not inline with the BBC cultivated image at all. It does explain why the flavour of the comments on the site is."above board" all the interesting comments get removed. If you want a chance at an off-topic comment remaining, try putting something positive about the BBC within the comment.

The have your say section has it's fair share of middle-englanders, who words like excellent' ("The BBC is an excellent source of news") and twaddle' a lot and the bbc website is more than geared up for them. If you want lively, vigorous, varied debate, the BBC is not the place for you. As much as I hate to admit it, try the daily mails website. At the BBC, we will have considered, calm. BOR-ING discourse specifically of the matters at hand.

We encourage discussion, but not "too passionate/enthusiastic" discussion. This is the BBC, of course. Your licence fee provides enough moderators, thank you. There is more moderation on the net than you think.

HYS is only available on very select stories. It's quite telling that often many of the top-rated comments have been deleted by moderation. If you comment on a different story than the one the HYS is open on, expect a deletion. "You vill comment on ze story in hant". Said in Her Majesties English, of course.

Dear BBC. Are. You. Aware. That when you remove a comment from your website, the internet has things called "other websites". Where the comment will probably get published. With stronger terminology. Possibly with the phrase "f__k the BBC" somewhere in the text. Possibly.

The lack of commenting could be quites#1te, tbh. Journalists have been known to get their facts' wrong, and if there is no immediate way of correcting this, then I believe what you have, is #fakenews. From the BBC of all places. And it's worth noting that the BBC slant on stories does NOT reflect public opinion. Income guaranteed by the government, it reflects the opinion that the government WANTS the public to have (just"be calm"). Left wing slant, whatever you do, don't OFFEND anyone. (someone can be stupid, just don't CALL them stupid. The beeb definitely doesn't call a spade a spade). The BBC is quite influential, you see. Can't have it saying the wrong' thing. No no.

To the users be NICE. Remember, it's ok. We've got our income guaranteed.

Brexit has shown just what a propaganda machine the British Propaganda Corporation is. Propaganda that you obviously can't comment on. Because most of the "articles" don't have comments sections on them.

Shadowban/censor - always log out of the account that posted the content (anywhere on the net) and make sure your post is still visible). Website [shadowban dot eu].
WokE - twitter concentrates on minorities, artificially boosts certain hashtags (LGBT/liberal to name some), removes certain "controversial (eg, accurate) hashtags. People seem to be realising this, which is why twitter stats (siteworthtraffic.com, type in twitter dot com) appear to be diving

Getting somewhat bored of it tbh. There's just so much sh t on there. It becomes tedious. The first 5 years were ok.

Noticed how '5 replies' seems to turn into no tweets? Some shadow-censoring going on there.

Update - ok. So for the first time ever, I used the block feature. And it gave me the opt of viewing their tweets. So it doesn't block, does it? A block feature, means it blocks. If it doesn't block, it's not a block feature.

(intro)

So twitter's popularity is going down. My guess, is that to start with, you're in the frame of mind to argue against 50% of the bull sh t you see posted on there. After a few months, you get bored. And you don't bother going on the site. [to argue/highlight bs]

(prev review)

Twitter is getting really good at silencing anything which doesn't agree with the hashtag. Burying replies, shadowcensoring/shadowbanning. Burying opposing replies - really great, say, for a government that wants to win an election. I had my account shadowcensored for 48 hours, for commenting on a tweet that "#LGBT makes me feel better about not being #LGBT". Ooo. K.

So June 2019 I discovered the term 'Terf(blocker)'. ('This tweet is unavailable' prompted some research). It's a non sensicle way of describing (and blocking) people who don't agree that men, who have had an operation, are now women. I have no opinion on the subject. Let the 0.5% do whatever they want, but yeah, it would be nice if you didn't use your 'previous maleness' to r. A. p. E women, win at sports... or whatever it is they are concerned about.

What's vaguely concerning, is apparently the way the (Terf)blocker works. It will block people who follow particular people. Ie, if you don't like what Donald Trump stands for, it will block anyone who follows Donald Trump. Protect your bubble.com, I suppose. Again, (repeating myself from below - it's not unreasonable that twitter can do anything it wants with it's own house. As long as people are made aware of it).

(personally? If I see something I disagree with, I find it much more satisfying to call them out on it, rather than just blank them)

It seems to be following the media/university thing of..."inclusivity". For universities, this is about tuition fees. Universities now want £9,000 to study, and want to attract the 0.5%. Universities are "assuming" the 99.5% are a given, and will still automatically stay. Plus a University getting free publicity on social media is, free publicity.

Update on the update. Accounts which I've barely used, have many "Tweet unavailable" messages. Logging out of twitter and viewing the same thread, brings up less "unavailable" messages. Odd.

Twitter also seem to bury a lot of good posts (from other people). Someone posting "snowflake" had been flagged as "offensive content".

****shadowban stuff****

A shadowban is when your post is only visible to your account, and people who follow you. It is for 'subtley' silencing users. Because if someone is aware that they're banned, they create another account. But if someone can see their posts, they aren't aware no one else can see them.

There is a website shadowban.eu that can test for you.

(just a note, facebook, and also youtube shadow deletes as well. If you leave reviews or comments on a page that the owner doesn't like, they can blank them so that your comment/review shows up to your login, but no-one elses. How do I know this - a) because I've had it done to me and b) because I've created pages and done it myself)

My shadowban was caused by uploading the same image twice, to two posts, in quick succession. If you want to upload the same image to two posts, I'd advise leaving 10 minutes between posting.

There are some possible fallouts from a shadowban, after your account is re instated. I would recommend having a second account to test. When you reply to a comment made on a tweet (as opposed to commenting directly on the tweet itself), your comment might not be visible to other twitter accounts. Your comment will be visible to yourself, and may be visible when you log out of twitter, and the above shadowban.eu website won't flag anything unusual. (and your reply will still be visible to the person who created the comment that you replied to, so they won't be aware of anything unusual).

Update-if you get shadowbanned and un-banned, you might get some unreliable posting. Tbh I'd recommend a new account. You can change all your name *******@handle details to your old account (obv change your old *******@handle to something else first).

Twitter (as with facebook, possibly others) has been said to be liberal leaning. The twitter format can be quite 'effective' at silencing right wing or aggressive views. The way replies to comments are displayed on threads, it can be easy to miss certain replies. Often you don't want to click a particular comment that has replies indicated (but not displayed) because your screen will be taken away from the entirety of the tweet thread you are viewing.

If you do get banned or suspended, a quick web search will show that it's not an uncommon occurrence. Apparently Republicans tend to get silenced (no matter how nuts you may think they are)

Personally, I spent some of my shadowban time reporting the cr@p out of offensive tweets. Interestingly, the recent Syrian Begum story, the trends kept 'disappearing'. Not that I'd ever suggest twitter can silence contentious issues. Still, it's their house, as they say. The important thing is to be aware of it.

Oh go$#*!'s The Public'. We'll have none of that here.

It's the BBC'. It's an institution. It's funded in a UNIQUE way. Don't question it.

Intro

Once upon a time, there was the BBC. And it was the only thing available. And people looked upon it, and didn't know any different. It did TV, and radio. Then the internet was invented, and the BBC had several long meetings. And decided it should have an internet presents.

Someone told them it was a presence' not presents, and they had several more long meetings, and decided that they should have an internet presence, not presents.

The BBC traditionally does other stuff apart from the internet, but this online thing is becoming quite popular. The beeb hasn't really figured out how to do audience participation (nor does it want to), altho it's news site does look lovely and dull. (this is an organisation that has 30 minutes of meetings everyday to decide how to be cool)

Background

The BBC is: severely up it's own a___ (UIOA). The BBC makes the most interesting or potentially exciting articles tedious, so you click back' after the first couple of paragraphs. It would be useful for the Beeb to have a time monitor on it's pages. Not to see how many clicks an article gets, but to see how soon after the click, the reader gives up reading and clicks back'.

You are not good enough for the BBC. It is the BBC's job to educate you from your current pleb level. Unless you're retired, in which case you're better than other people, and may be good enough for the BBC. The BBC is a safe space for you to learn about the dangerous parts of this world. Such as "slang", and "the internet".

The BBC

Parts of the BBC are loosing the plot as seemingly per the media industry (depending on how much attention you pay to the media industry'). But they are the mee dee arr, pinch of salt etc.

They are funded by the government. The money comes from you, but the penalty for not paying is prison, and the government ensures the prison. So the BBC is funded by the government. Paid for by you, but ensured by the government. That means the BBC won't say anything nasty about the government, because then, the government say "oh no, we're not guaranteeing your income". The gov't also won't abolish the license tax fee, because then the BBC won't say nice things abut the gov't. You scratch my bank account, I scratch yours.

(moderately) Left wing that looks like right wing. A supposedly free love' organisation, that has a pristine sensible image.The opposite of the Daily Mail. The Savile episode may be relevent for the fact that aunty is not as comfortable a relative as you might think. Moderately left wing, but slightly less irritating than the left-wing Huffngton Post, which shadowcensors *

*shadowban/shadowcensor=log out, check your comment is still visible

The BBC is keen to point out that things you thought were crap, aren't crap. The BBC defines this as 'opening your mind'. It's also called being liberal'.

Lots of sentences the BBC prints, seem to be directed at people who have absolutely no idea what is going on, and have zero knowledge of anything to do with the article they just clicked on. Eg. Caption on an online article: "social networks have faced criticism". I might write an article for the BBC. It will be a long, "in depth", moderately unreadable article on the Amazon rainforest. At the end it'll have a picture of a tree. With the caption: "this is a tree".

The BBC's news flavour is sanguine. That's what you get when you know your income is guaranteed, and not dependent on adverts, sales, or program quality. "It's ok. Everything is ok. We've got our money, so it's ok".

Comments

On the majority of news sites, the only decent information comes from user comments. There is a reason that on the BBC you are only able to comment on around 10% of the articles. That would mean. Allowing, THE PUBLIC you, the great unwashed to air their views. And that just gets messy, and is definitely not inline with the image the BBC wants to portray. YES, you pay for it, but god, no, don't Have Your Say'. On some of the HYS's (which are a nightmare to navigate around, being BBC standard', and not like'normal message boards'. And apparently You' is You, which is tricky if someone else decides to have the username of You'.) half the comments have been removed due to breaking the house rules'.

The BBC website DOES:
-tell you when a comment has been deleted, unlike the daily mail, where there is no trace.

The BBC website DOESN'T:
-let you comment on the majority of articles, and is also strict in that you can't submit a comment to an article, where the comment is about a different article
-allow you to find your own comments. Go figure. (the bbc would never condone anything as crude as say. Being able to find how upvoted/downvoted your OWN posts are)

Why is the BBC stricter on non-article related comments, while the DM is generally more leniant? Well, the BBC has it's income guaranteed by the government (essentially a public-owned service). The DM relies on user engagement' to sell it's product. The BBC news site is also popular with retired types, who have more time and are more inclined to report "non house rule" comments (the BBC is popular with old people. This may be because, older people want to FEEL that their news source is reliable, whether it is or not. They don't want to have the effort of wondering if they should question it. Varied user comments would unsettle them)

If you're quick enough to have read them before they are removed, you'll realise that most of them are normal conversation, which the beeb deems to beer"not up to standard" for their site. If you see them before they are removed, they are basically the good parts of a conversation down the pub. The pub is terribly' low-brow, though, not inline with the BBC cultivated image at all. It does explain why the flavour of the comments on the site is."above board" all the interesting comments get removed. If you want a chance at an off-topic comment remaining, try putting something positive about the BBC within the comment.

The have your say section has it's fair share of middle-englanders, who words like excellent' ("The BBC is an excellent source of news") and twaddle' a lot and the bbc website is more than geared up for them. If you want lively, vigorous, varied debate, the BBC is not the place for you. As much as I hate to admit it, try the daily mails website. At the BBC, we will have considered, calm. BOR-ING discourse specifically of the matters at hand.

We encourage discussion, but not "too passionate/enthusiastic" discussion. This is the BBC, of course. Your licence fee provides enough moderators, thank you. There is more moderation on the net than you think.

HYS is only available on very select stories. It's quite telling that often many of the top-rated comments have been deleted by moderation. If you comment on a different story than the one the HYS is open on, expect a deletion. "You vill comment on ze story in hant". Said in Her Majesties English, of course.

Dear BBC. Are. You. Aware. That when you remove a comment from your website, the internet has things called "other websites". Where the comment will probably get published. With stronger terminology. Possibly with the phrase "f__k the BBC" somewhere in the text. Possibly.

The lack of commenting could be quites#1te, tbh. Journalists have been known to get their facts' wrong, and if there is no immediate way of correcting this, then I believe what you have, is #fakenews. From the BBC of all places. And it's worth noting that the BBC slant on stories does NOT reflect public opinion. Income guaranteed by the government, it reflects the opinion that the government WANTS the public to have (just"be calm"). Left wing slant, whatever you do, don't OFFEND anyone. (someone can be stupid, just don't CALL them stupid. The beeb definitely doesn't call a spade a spade). The BBC is quite influential, you see. Can't have it saying the wrong' thing. No no.

To the users be NICE. Remember, it's ok. We've got our income guaranteed.

Brexit has shown just what a propaganda machine the British Propaganda Corporation is. Propaganda that you obviously can't comment on. Because most of the "articles" don't have comments sections on them.

(update)

Anyone who's submitted a negative review on a website probably knows something about this...(maybe), but facebook gives page owners the ability to shadow-remove the review feature. Ie... the person who submitted the 1-star review, will STILL BE ABLE TO SEE their review. To notice that reviews have been disabled, you need to log in as a different user. Reddit/twitter calls this shadow-banning/censoring.

Internet tip: always log out and check your content is still visible.

I'll update this. Facebook is not at an immature stage. It's developed, and is now a data collection website. That's why it "encourages" you (ie, closes your account) to use your real name. So it has your data.

You still can't contact them, and they still want to start a crypto-currency. "lol". Riiight...

"the reason" Facebook exists, is because there is no competition.

(preface)

Social networking, good or bad, privacy or no privacy, is still at an immature stage. This includes facebook, twitter, maybe others. Maybe because they are run by silicon valley teenagers who are still stunned that they can make money from this s##t.

They are victims of their own success, and cannot provide customer service for their users. They mostly use software robots (bots) and AI to detect when you are doing "something wrong".

They all allow criticism of other platforms (facebook will allow criticism of twitter, and vise versa), so if you have a gripe, take to other platforms. This applies to other things as well - criticise the BBC from the dailymail's website, and so on.

(review)

It isn't about providing you with a useful website. It's about clicks and page visits, and keeping you there.

My issue comes with the "customer support", or lack of. Most companies have *some way* of letting you contact them. Most companies wouldn't exist without some sort of customer support option. Facebook has absolutely no way of letting you contact them if you have a problem. Their customer support is you asking the facebook community a question.

This means if your profile gets deleted, you have absolutely no way of getting any human assistance. There is an 'appeal' page. Which doesn't work.

Our house, our rules. No human customer support. Facebook is a typical modern silicon valley muppet company. As an article has said, facebook is "insecure". Arrogant, but insecure. 2 billion users makes you arrogant, knowing all they have to do is close a window makes them insecure.

Facebook seemed to go downhill when they started enforcing usernames. People often want to use initials, or nicknames, which Facebook doesn't allow. There are any number of reasons why you don't want to use your real name. Like half the purpose of the internet. You want to express yourself, without revealing your identity. Be it a less-than-positive review of a service, or otherwise.

The reason facebook wants you to use your real name, is exactly the same reason you don't want to. Facebook wants to profile you, and sell you things. The less facebook knows about you, the less it knows about you.

As I said, this wouldn't be QUITE so bad if there was a way of getting in contact with a human being. Or perhaps it would. "Facebook's policy is no aliases" is the same coming from a person as coming from an automated script.

Facebook gets worse all the time... "Facebook live" - a non reliable way of streaming live video, with regular pauses. Perfectly suited to playing music, where reliability isn't particularly important. Unfortunately, facebook bots detect the music, and delete the video if the DJ/author doesn't hold the music's copyright. Despite the fact they have often paid for the records, and are not making money from the streaming.

Facebook continues to find new ways to lose friends and alienate people (when you have 2 billion monthly users, you DON'T CARE about individual accounts. Things only become problems when they affect millions of users). Automated facebook has many ways of locking people out of profiles. You'll sometimes be asked to confirm your identity by identifying photo's of people on your friends list. Many people play facebook based games, and have added in contacts for that purpose, so can't identify people by face.

Officially, facebook only allows you to have a single account. There are MANY reasons why you might want to have more than one facebook account (you want to post certain things under an alias, you want to join a group but want to avoid certain people knowing about it), and one very good reason why facebook only wants you to have one. The less you do with an account (eg, a speciality account), the less facebook can profile you and sell your information. If you do everything in your life using one account, facebook gets a very good idea about who you are.

Instagram have removed the hashtag search facility

That means it's impossible for anyone to find your content. So if your view count is down. That's why

Why did they do this? Because they want you to pay to be boosted. Money

But instagram was never for your benefit. At least not since facebook acquired it.

Re Shadowban/shadowcensor comments - Internet tip, on any websites (facebook, reddit, twitter, comments sections of news articles, posted content), always check your content is publically visible when you log out of the account that made it).

No reply to emails? Doesn't work? It's all 'The internet of things'...

TL; DR

Full of 5h1t. Bans you if you call it out on it's 5h1t.
P1sses on good news,
Glorifies bad news/stupidness
Encourages bad behaviour, then gets "outraged" when the behaviour happens
BQM (bl00dy questionnable moderation. Panders to whingers. Altho, currently the DM does not shadow-censor)

(Internet posting tip: always check your comment is publically visible when you log out of the account)

Can you say 'clickbait'?

2 stars is generous

Also known as the Daily Fail, Daily Heil (it's well known they were Nazi sympathisers), Daily Wail and Daily Hate.

So why go there? "All that is needed for the Daily Mail to flourish, is for good people to say nothing".

A right wing paper that looks like a left wing paper.

The purpose of this tabloid seems to be to remove hope from people, so they don't get ideas about doing anything pro-active (or appreciating what's good).

Do not expect free speech.

It seems to be about instilling fear and doubt.

2 steps:
1) reel you in with some bait. The bait can either be something you WANT to hear, or something you totally disagree with (ie, you need to respond & comment)
2) once you are reeled in, feed you a constant stream of negative, so you give up any hope of trying to be a pro active positive member of society.

The only thing worth reading on this site is the comments section. Don't take the articles themselves TOO seriously (if you actually read the articles themselves, and don't go straight to the comments).

All article comments are moderated, even the ones that say they aren't moderated. Just in case you say something against the DM's agenda. There is very little point trying to comment on a moderated article if you don't say either "disgusted" or "lovely". "I don't want to live in this country anymore" comes up quite a bit. A few people get news coverage by doing something stupid, and someone doesn't want to live in the country any more. That's quite a strange comment really. There are plenty of countries you wouldn't want to live in. This, really isn't one of them. Heck knows what would happen if they lived in a country where a lot of the country didn't want to live there any more. "I fear for the future" is also usually a home run.

Some articles comments are moderated to wind the readers up. Ie, there will be a story where the obvious reaction is "idiot", but the moderators have allowed the "poor dear" comments. You can tell when then want to wind up the readership, they'll have lots of articles that are 'moderated' comments only. Occasionally they'll have a non-moderated comments article, but if the comments on that article don't go the way they want, they'll change it to moderated. They've done this on more than one occasion.

On an "un-moderated" article, if your comment doesn't appear, I would recommend putting in some random full stops into a word. For instance, "guns" might become "g.uns".

Now I can't prove this, but I have a feeling that if you use a flagged word (eg, kardashian), it notches your 'alert' level up by one. So if you use a questionable word (muslim, liberal, etc ad infinitum) I'd recommend putting in some extra characters (kardashian might become k ar d.ash ian)

Seriously, commenting on the DM site is a 'guilty pleasure'. Only go on the page if you is 'well up for a rucus'. Trolling a moderated comments section may get your comment printed. Trolling is NOT bullying. Bullying is bullying. Trolling is posting a (mostly harmless) comment to get a reaction/wind people up.

I suspect a LOT of original material gets moderated or removed from the site. Mail online WILL remove comments that get reported by "Offended People". So the mail plays to the lowest common demoninator. But to be honest, the 'news'paper is AIMED at the lowest common denominator. This moderation plays into the hands of the "I'm offended and will complain and they'll listen to me". 1984 in full force. If you call someone a nice name, you're fine. If you call someone a nasty name, it can be reported. Tbh they probably want to create their own news again, if you express yourself, then are 'moderated', you are more likely to 'express yourself' in real life, and make a story.

There's so much skewed up with this paper, it would need a list. The site mis labels bullying as trolling. Ironically enough, the daily mail at around 6 million circulation is probably the countries biggest troll. Most articles are not for information, but to get a reaction. Half of it seems to be for the "did you read the mail this morning? What a load of..." conversations.

If you think for yourself and disagree with what they say, your comment will probably be removed or not printed. If you are a sheep and the most you can contribute is "disagraceful/despair", you're in there.

The mail appears to attempt to generate it's own news. EG, It will run ENDLESS hate stories on a certain group (benefit cheats, muslims, immigrants), and then when an event actually happens against this group (eg a real verbal/physical attack), it will gleefully publish shock at the terrible things being done to that group. When a story is printed of eg, something bad happening to one of those groups, the comments are generally moderated to show peoples faux 'disgust' at what happened, while the rest of the mails readership knows full well that that group of people is relentlessly attacked in the Mails other stories. When reporting murdered females, it often finds a pic of the women in swimwear or chest pics.

The journalists are all right wing types who wish it was 1950, smoke a pipe, listen to mozart, and have blind faith that all authority is right. Maybe that's what right-wing means. "All laws are right". A lot of the readership is female, so there's a generous proportion of feminist man haters who left their self criticism at the door before wondering why they weren't handed life on a plate.

This paper really is thought control. It wants to tell you what to think. And then when someones thoughts cause them to carry out a "newsworthy story" (usually some form of violence against someone else), it will jump on it, and publish it, and sell newspapers.

DM slogan - "You'll think what we want you to think, and if you think for yourself, we don't like your type round here".

Generally if something is good, the dm will ridicule it. If someone has done something stupid, and been told on it, the dm will slate the person who told them off. The dm tries to perpetuate ignorance and stupidity. I suppose ignorance and stupidity creates events that can be reported as 'news'. Keeps the mail in its "job". Plus, the more stupid the Plebs are, the more of a pleb the government can be and still be in control.

One of the DM's agenda's is to get you to spend money, so a lot of the articles are designed as adverts to sell you products. This includes selling you a lifestyle, articles about ex-Z listers and what they are wearing. It tells you you have to spend money to attain 'happiness'. One form of 'happiness', is the right hand column of stories on the site, where it would have you believe Z-listers are permanently on holiday.

Curiously the dm and bbc news sites could be equal and opposite. The DM is a right wing site that looks like a left wing site. EG, It's a "the law is right" site, that feels like a pub. The bbc news site is a left wing site that looks like a right wing site. EG, it's a "love everyone" site, that is wearing a pristine suit and tie. A lot of this approach is probably due to who funds them, or who guarantee's their funding.

The mail likes:
The royals
Brexit
The police
The tories

The mail doesn't like
The speaker of the house
The BBC
Jeremy clarkson
Facebook

Apparently the mail has a new editor. The previous one was quite right wing, the newer one is more left wing. So expect a different bias in articles.

As for the adverts that I've occasionally seen litter the page, I can't really comment because I use an adblocker. The only other issue is that the page is quite long, which means it can take a few seconds to load. DM, you could have half the number of c**p stories on your page, and it would load twice as fast (adblock just registered 145 blocked items. Really?). It really can get horrifically slow sometimes.

Often you want to go straight to the comments. The articles that have comments enabled (most... tbh) give you a comment link from the headline, but the DM has decided that you want to see any inline video's in each article, so a video window pops up, which just slows everything down a little bit more.

Since changing from a hard disk drive to an SSD, the page loading time has marginally improved. The Mail's website is still slow as s##t though.

It's quite an easy to navigate site, apart from the pauses in loading. There are sites such as the telegraph and the independent, but these aren't quite as accessible. The mail also lets you vote comments up or down without registering, so comments appear to garner far more reaction.

And the bin men took it.

Hermes denied this, until I scanned and sent them the 'in black bin' slip. They then presumably sent the seller a claim form.

They kindly sent me a survey via email, by the time the parcel had been resent and arrived (a month after purchase) the survey was closed.

Buggy website: the interface is full of bugs. Sometimes it says error, sometimes it doesn't detect mouse clicks properly. You have to repeatedly do an action and eventually it navigates to the right place

Always wants more money: even if you pay for it, it keeps offering you more buying options, like read receipts, tokens and profile visibility. You get the feeling they'll never be happy with how much money you are giving them.

Bad customer service: zoosk login system is flakey at best, especially if you login with facebook. It doesn't set your password properly and won't send an email with a password reset. The first time I contacted zoosk customer service they replied. However their fix didnt work, and as soon as I emailed back saying I needed them to do something, I never heard from them again.

1) When it goes wrong.

All it takes is...

A group of people to report you (ie, a company that you gave a bad review) and your email address is gone. When it fails, there is zero assistance.

There are two worlds out there. There is the real world. This is where you buy a chair, and you have a chair. Or you buy a bus ticket, and you get a bus journey to somewhere.

Then there is the Microsoft world. The fantasy world. The imaginary world. The world that does not exist. The world that contains nothing more than 1's and 0's, the world that is not real. Microsoft occupies the "this product does not exist" world.

If microsoft was a real company, it would go bust. Microsoft is not a real company. It is a product of something that "doesnt exist". Magnetic particles that use circuitry to produce a '1' or a '0'. Someone has said "you need these imaginary 1's and 0's, and we can produce more of them than everyone else".

What this means, is that microsoft do nothing more than make something appear on screen. This is imaginary. This is not real. So when there is a problem with the software microsoft produced, the problem does not exist. Because hotmail does not exist, it has zero support capacity. If you use hotmail, and something goes wrong, that's it. Zero assistance. Nothing.

If you are unable to login, there is nothing.
If you are hacked, it is imaginary.
If it does not work, that's it. Nothing. It is a non existant product. It doesn't exist so it cannot not-work.

A statement - all webmails are the same*. They all have the same function. Email. Very little difference. When they send emails, that's it. They send emails. Bully for them. The difference between (anything), is what happens when they go wrong. How quicky if at all is the fault fixed. When microsoft goes wrong, there is nothing. Zero. Nil. Zilch. You may lose access to your hotmail account at ANY time. And if you do, you will have NO access to it. There is NO fix. There is NO one you can contact to rectify it.

I did not try hotmail for many years. I was never quite sure why. When hotmail goes wrong, you will realise why you use computer based email. After all, it's all there in the end user licence agreement. It clearly says: If this doesn't work, tough ****.

(and when you think about how many thousands and thousands and thousands of lines of code, all those:;({}),%, how many hundreds of seperate computers that all need to keep their seperate databases synchronised, how many different computers are running hundreds of lines of script which is by the second being updated by many different programmers at once. There are errors being made every single second)

Coding character errors. Code backdoor errors (hacking). Human error (you did update the patch didn't you), people with a grudge requesting that an account be de activated. If microsoft received 20 emails from a group of people with a grudge (eg, employees of a company that received a bad review), they are likely to deactivate an account.

Your hotmail could be cancelled, stopped, no questions asked, no information given. It's happened. It's a weapon.

Microsoft definition of security is this:

If you are the genuine email owner, but cannot get into your email: No action taken.
If you are a hacker, and successfully hack into someone elses account: No action taken.

It's useful accessing email from any computer. I would suggest other email products. Other products will have faults. It's not the faults that count, its the availability of a fix. Microsoft has none.

2) Hotmail to outlook.

Microsoft have migrated from a useable interface, to an 80's cgi style graphic playschool interface. My guess on this, is that people were overloading their servers, because in migrating, my email browsing has changed from having the window open all day, to having the window open when I only absolutely need a screen which makes you want to look at something else as soon as possible. Hotmails site usage stats have dived in the past 6 months, so this must be the general opinion of a. User.

The interface is in line with microsofts recent adverts or windows 8, which seemed to be aimed at people who use rolled up notes.

Ebay's logo has also changed, from colourful letters which overlap each other (I assumed the overlapping corresponded to the different departments being in contact which each other), to office-style logo where the letters don't touch each other.

Quoted from someone elses post, author not known, but very accurate.__________

They're not going to bring back Hotmail. That's my guess, anyway. Because that would involve admitting they were wrong and that Outlook isn't the wonderful NEW product they've touted it as. In other words, they'd have to eat crow.

Here is an interesting comment from another "Hate Hotmail" thread, which I believe is probably the best explanation:

"You have to understand there are some highly paid geeks at MSN who have to justify their immense salaries by taking a perfectly good email set-up, and then scr-w it up royally."

So, these code monkeys (no offence to any here) play with formats and come up with something different, simply for the sake of it being something different.

"Oh yeah - this is NEW, this is innovative, oh man, this is SO cutting edge!" ( I know someone like that - it doesn't matter that it totally s-cks, as long as it's new and different and HE came up with it).

Somehow they sell Microsh-ft on the idea, and voila! Us poor technotards get stuck with some ugly, un-usable piece of **** that makes no sense and makes us very unhappy and very angry. We hate it! We don't want it!

Make it leave!

But MSN loves it because they believe it's bleeding edge; ergo, that makes THEM über-cool and hip and everyone will be really, really impressed.

Yeah... NO.__________

As an addition, microsoft has what appears to be a robot controlled script on its facebook page giving generated replies for assistance.

Running one of the biggest companies in the world obviously means you can't offer real people to reply to messages, so microsoft appears to have set up two files. One of these files contains an initial greeting of "hey there" or "wotcha" or "thanks for reaching around", the other file contains "get back to us" or "lets box outside the blue and do some sky thinking" or "tell us about your progress". (YOU'RE supposed to be having the progress, I'M the one waiting for YOU to get access to the account).

There's probably about 2 to the 8 permutations you can get before the replies start being identical. 2 to the 8 is probably just enough to cover one microsoft day. A microsoft day is about the same as a microsoft dollar.

"You get what you pay for", or "It's free". If you offer a service with the knowledge that that service can go wrong, and with the knowledge (and this has been all worked out by microsoft) that you can fix, for eg, 10 problems per day, and you have 100 users producing 15 problems, then what you are actually offering isn't a service, it's a liability. And microsoft should call hotmail (outlook, etc) "microsofts free email liability". And it's ok calling it a liability as long as you realise that's what it is.

*True at the time of writing. Gmail's layout is infinitely better than outlooks.

I'm not going to say anything about imaginary sky fairies, or attack anyones religion.

As they say, faith that can't be tested is worthless. All I will say, is that if you post anything that disagrees with what they say, you'll be banned. I was banned within minutes. I can tell you what I said if you want. Their ideals and mindsets must be pretty fragile.

In my experience there are 3 types of people who go for religion.

1 - People with a bad past, who have "found" religion
2 - People with a fairly good life, who think "why not"
3 - People who have been brought up with it by their parents.

I don't know if this is general religion or just Christianity, but I've always found Christians to be a bit "inbred". That is, they say certain things in conversation between themselves (or other people). They seem to get brownie points for shoehorning the words 'God' or 'Jesus' into sentences.

Also Christianity at least seems to have an awful lot of 'get-out' clauses in it. That is, you'll often hear things like 'God never said it would be easy', or 'Prayers are answered, just not [necessarily] in the way you want them to be'.

Christianity seems to be about making 'success' out of failure. Which is great, if you can convince yourself of that.

Ebay is reasonable. I prefer it over Amazon, the search facility is definitely better. If you return an order bought on ebay, you usually have to pay postage, Amazon pays your return postage for you. Ebay has a good search system, Amazon doesn't.

Ebay pays a similar percentage of tax as amazon, so in principle it's no better, but the overall business is smaller than amazon, so the actual £profit and numbers are lower

Paypal (owned by ebay) is an utter cash cow. Taking a chunk of all payments. Like I said... ebay/paypal need competition

There is something slightly more insidious about ebay. Take hiking shoes for example. Unless you have a brand you know and love, there is a lot of low quality rubbish for sale. This means items that should last, end up being consumables (6 month life span for a pair of shoes). This can't be good for the environment... (but who cares about the environment? It's all about profit from selling things). This is probably accentuated by the fact that unless you know what you are buying, you'll tend to err on the side of cheapness, because you might not really know what you are buying.