31–40 of 48 posts
Not cool. I can see that browsers want to warn people of (technically) dangerous websites. But websites that are 'wrong'? Slippiest of slopes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s dumb. Nobody is being prevented from reading the content. They’re just being warned—correctly—that the information is unreliable.
I would be more in favour of this if it had a click through with a more-information thingy which would show their reasoning applied to other news similar news sites that hadn't had a warning applied to them so users could have a chance to judge the accuracy. For example in this situation maybe it is based on how many retractions daily mail has made. So it might show a table of news-sites and the retractions and an in…
Have an explanation of NewsGuard ... from the Daily Mail.
* https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-5464649/NewsGu...
(Well, really it's from AFP.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no countries where there are media, but no "tabloids" (also the term can be different). The UK is not that unique as you seem to believe.
I beg to differ. An example is Australia. Plenty of national and regional broadsheets, but no purposefully trashy tabloids that I can think of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are no countries where there are media, but no "tabloids" (also the term can be different). The UK is not that unique as you seem to believe.
I beg to differ. An example is Australia. Plenty of national and regional broadsheets, but no purposefully trashy tabloids that I can think of.
So its Snopes for the Web? There would need to be some transparency issues sorted out (i.e, we need to know who's grading the sites and that the service is open to scrutiny) but the concept is good at least.
* https://www.newsguardtech.com/ratings/sample-nutrition-label...
Here's someone who has:
* http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/08/newsguard-considers-fox-new...
Not cool. I can see that browsers want to warn people of (technically) dangerous websites. But websites that are 'wrong'? Slippiest of slopes.
I agree that Microsoft in particular cannot be trusted to do this. They will inevitably display the same warning if the user attempts to view, say, the Halloween documents or visit Linux.org.
My immediate reaction to a browser giving unsolicited advices about quality of the contents is to download another browser. I'm not a kid, thank you.
Yet your response is very child like.
My immediate reaction to a browser giving unsolicited advices about quality of the contents is to download another browser. I'm not a kid, thank you.
I'm not a kid, thank you. Yet your response is very child like.
As for the topic I'm interested if you really feel it ok for you to be a subject of a soft form of parental control from a commercial entity?
I suppose it might serve as a useful warning for readers from other countries, especially if their country doesn't have tabloids of their own. I would say most people in the UK know to take news from certain publications with a grain of salt, but it can be far from obvious for others.
Not in my experience, there are people in my own family who lap it up.