Will the Daily Mail get its comeuppance

[Oneeyedvic]

According to the Guardian and Global Dashboard, Facebook has threatened to sue Daily Mail over an article that wrongfully claimed Facebook makes it easy for older sex predators to approach and seduce minors.

Daily Mail’s article, which can (in edited form) be found here, was written by a former police detective Mark Williams-Thomas, and had originally been titled “I posed as a girl of 14 on Facebook. What followed will sicken you.” It contained the account of the author posing as a minor on Facebook (Facebook), which, according to him, attracted sexual predators right away.

The problem? He wasn’t really using Facebook to conduct the experiment, he used a “different social networking site,” as explained in today’s update to the article, added at the bottom by Daily Mail staff. The full text of the update is as follows:

“In an earlier version of this article, we wrongly stated that the criminologist had conducted an experiment into social networking sites by posing as a 14-year-old girl on Facebook with the result that he quickly attracted sexually motivated messages. In fact he had used a different social networking site for this exercise. We are happy to set the record straight.”

Needless to say, this caused a strong response from Facebook, which is still referenced throughout the article. According to the Guardian, a UK spokeswoman for Facebook said that the company was considering legal action due to the “brand damage that has been done.”

[Oneeyedvic]

Original story link: http://mashable.com/2...might-sue-daily-mail/

Daily Mail article: http://www.dailymail....lowed-sicken-you.html

[lslowry]

"according to the guardian" eh, that tells me a lot about you one eye

[jackthehat]

If Facebook proceed with the action, the DM will either capitulate and cough up or let it go to court and cough up. The apology will, doubtless, be printed in tiny font next to the weather report and then the 'paper will continue about its scare-mongering way............

[Oneeyedvic]

///"according to the guardian" eh, that tells me a lot about you one eye ////

What's that then? Because I bet you any money you like that you would be wrong.

[Oneeyedvic]

oh, and if you had bothered to continue reading, you would see that I have copied and pasted from the links provided - from mashable website.

Personally, I like to get my news from a variety of sources - as I find that people who only buy (lets say) the Daily Mail, have a very blinkered view on life.

Here you go - some more sources for you:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ook_v_daily_mail.html
http://www.journalism...2/articles/537884.php
http://www.techradar....l-legal-action-676525

[sp1814]

Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy - reading through some of the comments, it would appear that what the writer described is completely impossible to achieve in Facebook, due to pre-existing security measures.

I see a common theme here....earlier this week is was paedophiles using Google streetmaps to hunt down kids, and now Facebook.

Perhaps there weren't enough Muslim stories last week to sate the appetites of the DM hacks?

[sp1814]

Another point - if it is so easy for paedophiles to pray on young girls on the social networking site that the DM used for it's experiment....why doesn't the paper name it, so that concerned parents can check whether their kids have accounts there?

Rory Cellan-Jones has written on his BBC technology that Mark Williams-Thomas didn't even write the piece - it was already pre-written by a DM journalist and then simply sent to him!

If the DM refuse to publish the name of the site then they are either a) willfully putting children in danger or b) they've made the whole thing up.

Not sure what's worse.

[craft1948]

I love the Daily Mail.........but then I used to love Beano...

[JimT]

@Islowry - "according to the guardian" eh, that tells me a lot about you one eye

...and THAT tells ME a lot about you, i.e. that you're a presumptious judgemental pillock

[craft1948]

actually lslowry seems quite a nice person to me...........but then he'd probably not call someone a pillock for expressing a point of view.......