49 dead in terrorist attack in New Zealand

[meridian]

Considering that this can be done without an account or logging on I would recommend you take the validity of those with a truck-load of salt. If at all.

Assuming you’re in any way vaguely correct, and instead of hundreds of terrorist supporters it’s just a couple of sad Yaxley-Lennons repetitively clicking, wouldn’t it be in the Daily Mail’s interests to remove and/or cleanse the clickbait?

One of two things could therefore be true: there is a significant fringe of far right racists that read the Daily Mail, or the Daily Mail wants to promote the impression that a significant fringe of it’s readership is made up of far right racists.

Either way, not really something that the DM should be proud of.

[northernladuk]

The DM has a large circulation, I wouldn't say a good proportion disagree with normal decent standards. I would say that you should take the 30 or 40 downvotes with a pinch of salt, you can do it not logged in and you can easily trick it to vote multiple times.

Doesn't help anyone by casting aspersions on a good proportion (your words) of the DM readership.

Which totally true for most pages comment on but looking at the top 4 best posts and comparing number of down votes to upvotes

1st - 13% down votes
2nd - 17% down votes
3rd - 17% down votes
4th - 35% down votes

That is very surprising indeed.

[woohoo]

Which totally true for most pages comment on but looking at the top 4 best posts and comparing number of down votes to upvotes

1st - 13% down votes
2nd - 17% down votes
3rd - 17% down votes
4th - 35% down votes

That is very surprising indeed.

Not really, it's pretty easy to down vote as many times as you want, just clear your cookies out. Plus again, assuming it was 50 sickos downvoting it's still a tiny minority compared with the readership figures. So I don't think it represents a "good proportion" of the DM readership.

[woohoo]

Assuming you’re in any way vaguely correct, and instead of hundreds of terrorist supporters it’s just a couple of sad Yaxley-Lennons repetitively clicking, wouldn’t it be in the Daily Mail’s interests to remove and/or cleanse the clickbait?

One of two things could therefore be true: there is a significant fringe of far right racists that read the Daily Mail, or the Daily Mail wants to promote the impression that a significant fringe of it’s readership is made up of far right racists.

Either way, not really something that the DM should be proud of.

Seems a conclusion based on bias rather than any kind of evidence or logical thinking.

[meridian]

Seems a conclusion based on bias rather than any kind of evidence or logical thinking.

The evidence is that there are a large number of downvotes on posts that show sympathy for terrorism survivors.

Either the clicks are real, or else they are not and the DM has not removed them.

What conclusion would you draw from that?

[woohoo]

The evidence is that there are a large number of downvotes on posts that show sympathy for terrorism survivors.

Either the clicks are real, or else they are not and the DM has not removed them.

What conclusion would you draw from that?

So there are a small number of downvotes, not large. Downvotes can be duplicated. If one or two people where sufficiently motivated to do that. I imagine nutters are often motivated to do things like this.

As to the reason why doesnt DM stop everyone from downvoting and just allow upvoting. Well you would have to ask DM. It might be it's never occurred to them or they don't believe in censorship. Or they don't have the resources or the inclination to moderate their comments section properly. Or they may be incompetent, personally I would have thought twice about opening up comments on a story as sensitive as this but the DM may feel people have a right to express sympathy.

To come to the conclusion that a sizable proportion of the DM readership expresses sympathy for a murdering scumbag that's just killed 50 people, based on a small number of downvotes is well, daft.

[NotAllThere]

The two can go together though. If you don't give people an outlet to complain about things in one way, you increase the risk they'll complain about it in another.

On the other hand, if you don't give them a way of disseminating their views, you lower the chance of those on the margins becoming radicalised.

[DaveB]

Not really, it's pretty easy to down vote as many times as you want, just clear your cookies out. Plus again, assuming it was 50 sickos downvoting it's still a tiny minority compared with the readership figures. So I don't think it represents a "good proportion" of the DM readership.

If that was the case then the number of down votes wold be fairly consistent across all the posts made, but they are not. The older the post, the more up votes it has and the more down votes. The first post on there for example has 4505 up votes and 1606 down votes. So unless your hypothetical 50 sickos are making a point of going back and repeatedly down voting the oldest posts, clearing their cookies every time they do so, 1600+ times and keeping up with down voting the other 1100 newer ones then that is not whats happening.

And if it is what was happening why hasn't the Mail taken action to stop it, since it makes it look like up to 25% of it's readership the very least feel no sympathy for the victims to the extent that they are willing to down vote posts that do express sympathy.

[NotAllThere]

So there are a small number of downvotes, not large.

Not true. I looked at the first hundred or so. I estimate that the downvotes are around 40% to 60%, on posts expressing sympathy, or even liking New Zealand. The Mail Online has a wide readership among tulipheads in the US and other parts of the world, so it really isn't surprising.

The DM, while saying the views of the commentators don't necessarily reflect the views of the DM, nonetheless are given a platform to some pretty despicable individuals - all in the name of acquiring traffic so they can sell adverts.

Downvotes can be duplicated.

So can upvotes. So what? Unless you've got some solid evidence for this happening, this part of your comment deserves derision and opprobrium.

On balance, I think you need to really consider carefully what it is you are wanting to say. I find it a bit odd that I have to say this to you, because I thought overall you were a reasonably decent person.

[TheGreenBastard]

On the other hand, if you don't give them a way of disseminating their views, you lower the chance of those on the margins becoming radicalised.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Every experiment with that approach quickly ended in societal collapse.