- Se valoró con 5 de 5Nice unobtrusive display system with the grading identifier embedded in web searches, facebook posts and in the toolbar. As for its accuracy, it gets Breitbart and Daily Mail spot on as being full of fiction, and the Washington Post, New York Times, Guardian UK and BBC as being pretty reliable sources. Can't argue with that personally. Just a shame the trolls are ahead of the game in rating the app and giving it an undeserved low score.
- Se valoró con 4 de 5While this is a must-have addon, it is as well to remember that no amount of automation can replace rational thinking and common sense, so if you add that you should be fine.
And take warning of many of these reviews - clearly many people have their own biases and this kind of add-on directly harms the credibility of their own ideologies, and an addon such as this only reveals the deficiencies of their favoured propaganda outlets.
- Se valoró con 5 de 5Must have to protect yourself and your family from lies, hatred and disinformation. It would have been nice to have more customisable features the warning is too small.
- Se valoró con 5 de 5A credible way to understand the veracity and credibility of information we see, provided by journalists. We have needed this for a long time to be a free people having clear facts.
- Se valoró con 5 de 5Helps with determining the quality of journalism of many sites. It's very useful for showing older or less informed readers the quality and objectivity of what they're looking at, and giving a good idea of the quality of the reporting at a glance.
Hopefully this will help inspire more transparent news reporting in the future!
- Se valoró con 2 de 5Huffington Post gets an all clear rating? Did you even read your analysis? You say they have an opinion section but sometimes opinions slip through. Search for Trump Racist in any search engine and they have an article from a few years ago "Here Are 13 Examples Of Donald Trump Being Racist." In the Politics section - not Opinion - sources about 20 other news sites (unoriginal much), and ends with an endorsement by the editorial staff:
"Editor’s note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims ― 1.6 billion members of an entire religion ― from entering the U.S."
As objective as I can be, that doesn't sound like journalism. It sounds like a freelance, rookie staffer sat down, skimmed the headlines, and wrote a frenzied article. I could've hired a kid in high school to write something with more value.