166 revisiones
  • There are already many one-star reviews for this Add-on, with most of them writing it off as leftwing propaganda or conspiracy. The creators have clearly outlined transparent and objective criteria for judging news-websites, which also can be viewed for each website with a detailed report on how and why the judgement was constructed in an understandable manner. These judgements have nothing to do with political orientation, but are based on general good practice in journalism (proper citation of sources, conflicts of interest and source of money made by website).

    There criteria can be very helpful in identifying fake or misleading news as well as propaganda. No contents are blocked, so censorship is not an issue. It is a highly informative application.
  • helps u fighting lies and fake news. dont forget to use your brain and check information u get.
  • How much more left biased can this app be? A news rating app with ratings from left leaning "journalists". 1984 style propaganda and nothing more.
  • This is an artifact of the current social mass hysteria against independent investigative reporting. Given the controversial reputation of the add-on no major surprises. Note there is no 'Yellow' tag, only Green or Red. The ratings are laughable. Many Green-rated sites were once-reputable but have abandoned journalistic standards such as: excessive reliance on anonymous sources, presenting opinion as fact, sourcing other media vs original sources, and failing to correct verifiable false statements.
  • I see that some people don't understand how news and information sites are rated by Newsguard. Please RTFM. You may not like CNN or FoxNews and each are biased but Newguard is providing detailed data on why, for instance, both of those pass muster. Read it!
  • Could be quite useful but doesn't respect user privacy nearly enough.
  • Dispite the far right hating it - this is suprisingly useful. There's no accountability in the world and it's led to lies and properganda. This is a great step towards something constructive and works really eligantly.

    For sites like YouTube, it could do with going a layer deeper, and start looking at individual users.
  • A good idea, sadly if you already drank the kool-aid you'll probably claim this is leftist propoganda - much like a lot of incovenient facts.

    I do think there is something potentially dangerous about a company deciding what is acceptable, independent or not. Ultimately, if education did it's job and critical thinking was championed over ignorance, this wouldn't at all be necessary.
  • brilliant should be mandatory for all browsers and news outlets
  • Fairly accurate rating for most sites. I personally disagree with some of the detailed assessments but the Green / Red assignments are pretty spot on. No news source is perfect but this extension easily identifies a news organization versus a tabloid infotainment site.
  • Daily Mail? Untrustworthy? Absolutely spot on- thanks.
  • Works as described, doesn't create issues with browsing, provides useful information as a backup to using your brain to evaluate what you read. This add-on is usable right out of the box without the need to fiddle around setting it up. I especially like that it will show the ratings on links as well as on pages. This add-on does not block anything or prevent you from viewing any link or page, it simply gives you another data point to use when you evaluate a link or page for reliability. More info is always good!
  • Extension gives a rating that is fairly permissive depending on a number of criteria, but *not* whether it's left/right bias (a lot the the 'reviews' have not understood this) and clicking through will give you a detailed explanation for that rating. If you have a relative if gets their news from palmer report, american thinker, swivel-eyed loons on youtube or similar then this extension may well be helpful for them.

    On the downside, there's no options to make the extensions less intrusive.