@Murray / @SJ – Facebook don’t have the same finances as other businesses – they’re VC funded still: http://is.gd/aiNFZ
but may be profitable this year… They can sue, but until they really are making money, the Mail have deeper pockets (risk/reward assessments may come into play). You’re right about the independence of the PCC – without independence, these oiks will never be brought to book. I personally only read the Daily Mail through the window of sites such as this – I have written elsewhere that I wouldn’t wipe my a**e on the Mail, it turns your sh*t blue.

@VickyCollis / @Paul The only problem with corrections, half-hearted apologies and where the Mail re-writes articles, they still keep the original URL implicating Facebook (or whoever). This still means the article URL contains the original meaning and intention (or at least I’d like to see that asserted in court and force the Mail’s lawyers to refute and rebut). The assertion should be backed up by noting that browsers display the link URL in the status bar (and you all do check that first – see response to @Tribal Wars Bot) as well as the article text. This sets the expectation in the reader’s mind that Facebook (in this case) will be directly implicated in the article in the way originally intended. It colours the reader’s interpretation of the article.

The Mail (and all newspapers that encode summary versions of articles in the URLs to those articles) should be forced to write a URL redirector to handle errors, corrections, retractions and re-writes – the original URL goes to the apology page, with a link there to click on for the revised article.

Hopefully they will follow News Corp’s lead and move to hiding behind a paywall: http://is.gd/aiSVu – no one with a brain will follow and the Mail will go back to being a newspaper and website read by people who want to be outraged – they are just “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”, http://is.gd/aiTvQ aren’t they?