...because the Mail, the Sun, the Express, Metro, the Telegraph, the Mirror, Sky News and the Times have had their balls plunged in boiling water thanks to a complete load of old cock regarding a 'Facebook party'. It's obvious why the Times, Sun and Sky News should have been so eager to run a negative story about Facebook (if the same thing had happened to Rupert Murdoch's MySpace then I doubt we'd have heard a peep from those jokers) and for the rest it was just the usual prurient "internets are bad and kids in the Home Counties, eeek, the scariness!" kind of logic going on. Not just that, but comments on the stories were bollocks too - not sure if that will lead to more moderation or less, given that the 'see no evil' route is considered to be the way to avoid such nonsense. It's also complete weaselly bollocks, but there you go.
Also, it's maybe just a minor point, but:
The court was told that the party was not advertised on Facebook, but the girl had told friends via Bebo.
It wasn't even Facebook. For fuck's sake.
Elsewhere, Jaime delves into the murky waters of 'Femail' and finds a truly terrible assortment of stories. Are these really meant to appeal to women...? Seriously?
Ben Six on Mad Mel - she's there for whenblack and white is just that bit too ambiguous.
Septicisle on the fallout from the terror attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore.
Sunny at Pickled Politics on why the Tories are kind of right, but also kind of wrong.
And if you've got a couple of hours spare, have a look at these recently released documents detailing extraordinary measures taken in the wake of 9-11. I may think Paul Dacre is a deeply unpleasant turd of a man, but the one thing he's got right is to campaign for such documents to be available to the public here.
No related posts.