Microsoft Fights Fake News With NewsGuard Integration in Its Mobile Edge Browser (pcworld.com)

In a bid to fight fake news read while on your phone, Microsoft's mobile Edge browser on Android and iOS now includes the NewsGuard extension. From a report: The addition needs to be toggled on within the Edge settings menu to be enabled. Once it is, Edge will display a small shield icon next to the site's URL in the search bar: a green shield with a checkmark for a trusted news site, and a red shield with an exclamation point inside of it for a site that NewsGuard believes isn't always accurate. (Some sites haven't been evaluated, and these will simply show a gray shield.)

Comments

From NewsGuard's site: Why Should You Trust Us?

[PhrostyMcByte]

Why Should You Trust Us?

Because we are trained journalists who have spent our careers dedicated to the profession. We care deeply about reliable journalismâ(TM)s pivotal role in democracy. (In case youâ(TM)re wondering, our experienced journalists come from diverse backgrounds and have no political axes to grind.)

Because you can see the credentials and backgrounds of everyone responsible for every NewsGuard reliability rating and Nutrition Label that you read. For the names and biographies of our staff and contributors, click here.

Because we have an ethics and conflicts of interest policy to which all of our analysts and editors have to agree. You can read that policy here.

Because we are totally transparent about how we make all of our decisions. Our Nutrition Label write-ups explain what is behind our decisions. We disclose and explain in detail the nine criteria we use to rate each news site on its journalistic practices. Weâ(TM)re not a black box algorithm.

Because we make concerted attempts to get comment from every websiteâ(TM)s editor or manager before we write anything negative about the site, and always include the comment in our Nutrition Labels (or make changes after weighing the comment and realizing our initial conclusion was wrong). Algorithms donâ(TM)t call for comment.

Because we will post any complaints from website proprietors about anything we have written about them. And we will answer them publicly â" and when warranted will make corrections, publicly, after we consider the complaint. You can read our policy for correcting errors or mistakes here.

Because we accept no fees from the news websites we rate. (Our revenue comes from the platforms and search engines for licensing our ratings in order to include them in their feeds and search results.) We rate all news and information sites among the approximately 4,500 sites responsible for 98% of the online engagement in English in the United States.

Because we do not collect any personal information of any kind from those who download and use our browser plug-ins. None. You can read our privacy policy here.

Because bringing more information to people about the news sources they encounter online is our only business. Our success depends entirely on being trustworthy and reliable.

Thanks, but no thanks

[reboot246]

I'm a grownup human being. I don't need a company (that has its own bias and agenda) telling me which news sources to trust and which to distrust.

I knew right away Microsoft's opinion was worthless when I followed the link in the summary and saw Breitbart flagged. Yes, Breitbart has a right-leaning bias, but it's like an antidote to the main stream media's false and biased reporting.

You all probably don't see it because of your hatred for everything Trump, but in my nearly 66 years I've never seen so much hatred for a president from the press, a press that's SUPPOSED to be unbiased.

Just a few years ago Trump was getting awards from the NAACP, but now he's racist? Don't be so stupid to believe shit like that. Show some independence and intelligence, for Pete's sake. I see you and I see sheep.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[ljw1004]

Yes, Breitbart has a right-leaning bias, but it's like an antidote to the main stream media's false and biased reporting.

An "antidote" is a medicine you give to counteract a poison.

What you describe is countering one poison (what you call MSM's biased reporting) with another (what you call Breitbart's bias). That's not an antidote. I don't think there's any case of using one poison to cure another poison, other than homeopathy. In the absence of antidotes, I think the only thing we have us dilution -- i.e. counter biased reporting by clinging to news sources that are as unbiased as you can find.

Where will The Onion fit in?

[mysidia]

They aren't real news, and they aren't fake news....
they're satirical news for purposes of humor, with such absurd topics that any literate person should immediately recognize the article content as satire past the first paragraph or so, even if they were living under a rock and didn't know what TheOnion was. Are they going to get the dreaded "Fake News Warning" anyways?