Yahoo invites you to "get the look" of Afghan birthday party massacre aftermath

Online marketing fail

Yahoo's feature allowing readers to buy clothing worn by celebrities straight from the site clearly has a few kinks to iron out. Law professor Rebecca Tushnet reported that the site was offering readers the chance to "get the look" of:

A man holding spent .50 calibre shells look[ing] towards the Spozhmai Hotel on Qargha lake on the outskirts of Kabul on June 22, following an attack by Taliban militants.

Apparently a plaid scarf from EXPRESS (just $19.95), as well as a pair of $275 Prada sandals, is what is needed:

Yahoo have since taken the ad down, telling paidContent, who also reported the story, that:

In an effort to enhance the consumer experience with some new image-tagging technology on Yahoo! News, we experienced a mistagged photo. The photo in question was immediately flagged as inappropriate and the tag was removed.

"Immediately" is a moderately strange way of referring to three days. Tushnet first posted the pic on the 22nd, and it was still up when paidContent reported it on the 25th. More worrying, however, is that the process is not yet fully automated.

Computers may be good, but they aren't that good; it remains someone's job to actually link the pictures to the clothes. Between this and previous mishaps, like when readers of the National Inquirer were offered the chance to get the look of Elizabeth Edwards as she revealed that she was dying of cancer:

Or readers of US celeb mag Star were offered the chance to get the look of Nick Hogan, the son of wrestler Hulk Hogan, who had left a friend with serious brain damage following a car crash:

One would think that maybe the humans in the chain ought to be given a tiny bit more discretion. Or at the very least, filter out keywords like "massacre", "cancer" and "traumatic brain injury".

Oh dear, Yahoo. Oh dear.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

@Simon_Cullen via Twitter
Show Hide image

All 27 things wrong with today’s Daily Mail front cover

Where do I even start?

Hello. Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong. Very wrong. So wrong that if you have seen today’s Daily Mail cover, you no doubt immediately turned to the person nearest to you to ask: “Have you seen today’s Daily Mail cover? It is wrong.”

But just how wrong is the wrong Mail cover? Let me count the ways.

  1. Why does it say “web” and not “the web”?
  2. Perhaps they were looking on a spider’s web and to be honest that makes more sense because
  3. How does it take TWO MINUTES to use a search engine to find out that cars can kill people?
  4. Are the Mail team like your Year 8 Geography teacher, stuck in an infinite loop of typing G o o g l e . c o m into the Google search bar, the search bar that they could’ve just used to search for the thing they want?
  5. And then when they finally typed G o o g l e . c o m, did they laboriously fill in their search term and drag the cursor to click “Search” instead of just pressing Enter?
  6. The Daily Mail just won Newspaper of the Year at the Press Awards
  7. Are the Daily Mail – Newspaper of the Year – saying that Google should be banned?
  8. If so, do they think we should ban libraries, primary education, and the written word?
  9. Sadly, we know the answer to this
  10. Google – the greatest source of information in the history of human civilisation – is not a friend to terrorists; it is a friend to teachers, doctors, students, journalists, and teenage girls who aren’t quite sure how to put a tampon in for the first time
  11. Upon first look, this cover seemed so obviously, very clearly fake
  12. Yet it’s not fake
  13. It’s real
  14. More than Google, the Mail are aiding terrorists by pointing out how to find “manuals” online
  15. While subsets of Google (most notably AdSense) can be legitimately criticised for profiting from terrorism, the Mail is specifically going at Google dot com
  16. Again, do they want to ban Google dot com?
  17. Do they want to ban cars?
  18. Do they want to ban search results about cars?
  19. Because if so, where will that one guy from primary school get his latest profile picture from?
  20. Are they suggesting we use Bing?
  21. Why are they, once again, focusing on the perpetrator instead of the victims?
  22. The Mail is 65p
  23. It is hard to believe that there is a single person alive, Mail reader or not, that can agree with this headline
  24. Three people wrote this article
  25. Three people took two minutes to find out cars can drive into people
  26. Trees had to die for this to be printed
  27. It is the front cover of the Mail

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.