They did this even though this new platform has a different business model to MailOnline, being a subscription service, and is publishing its own exclusive content, notably podcasts and videos, in addition to the traditional award winning pieces of the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday.
There was a debate to be had here, at the very minimum an assement period, if the ban on the "Mail" was based on some logical reasoning and sober analysis of what makes a source reliable.
There was no debate, other than the perfunctory confirmation that this wasn't some other "Mail".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... aily_Mail?
This is of course because their ban on all things "Mail" has never been fact based. It has never been about the sober and unbiased consideration of evidence.
It's about their politics and their prejudice, jealousy and hate.
This is just the next Chapter.
I do feel bad for them, as they clearly still hold out hope that their ban has some effect on British politics and indeed life, that it somehow persuades people Wikipedia isn't biased and is trustworthy.
Spoiler alert. It hasn't.
Which of course doesn't mean they don't thoroughly deserve everything that is coming to them for having attempted such a thing.
Evil needs an answer. Permanent political irrelevance isn't enough. Living the lives of utter losers, isn't enough.
HTD.
