Fox News and Breitbart with a green check automatically discredits this app. Seriously!

Les sites de propagande sont indiqués comme fiables, les sites qui ne font pas de propagande indiques comme étant non fiables.

The criteria exist only as a way to pretend to have some form of objective standards. But in truth, the method by which the 9 points are evaluated is completely 100% subjective. Many examples can be used to show this, to the point where this review could end up obscenely long and come across as rambling, so instead I will keep it short and point out the worst one:

Wikileaks has a red rating for "Failure to regularly correct or clarify errors".

Think about that for a second. Wikileaks has a perfect record in terms of publishing factual information. So in other words, they give it a red-rating for failing to correct mistakes...BECAUSE WIKILEAKS HASN'T MADE ANY MISTAKES. Even the most biased individual should be able to admit that at the very worst, Wikileaks should be given an N/A rating instead of a red one for not correcting their NONEXISTENT errors. But Newsguard doesn't do that, it gives it a failing grade. Simply amazing.

That's not incompetence. That's a flat out lie. This is blatant journalistic malfeasance.

Newsguard can therefore be safely regarded as a smear campaign against news sites that the curators behind it do not like, while giving a free pass to US corporate media. Only download this add-on if you want to laugh at how blatantly biased it is. Some of the mental gymnastics Newsguard pulls to ensure cooked scores are impressive to say the least.

TL;DR: Blatantly and intentionally deceptive. Beware the 5 star reviews as there is a solid chance they are paid shills.

Rates all green to activist news sites. Garbage.

When you first see this, you have a small hope that it wouldn't be biased. But of course this is just another piece of the existing media machine to give legitimacy to the news websites who do as they are told and report events from the perspective of the Established Narrative. Those who report from a different perspective, who objectively speaking are no better or worse, get lower ratings.

At the end of the day, what is "fake news" and what isn't, is entirely dependent on the reader. NewsGuard will tell you if a website is pushing fake news...but only if your political views are aligned with the established narrative. As such it merely acts as a source of authority for such people to call their opposition and their news sources "fake news" rather than actually telling anyone which sites propagate "fake news" from any objective standpoint.

I recommend avoiding this addon if you can think critically already. You don't need a biased source to tell you what is fake or not, your own opinion will suffice. Make up your own mind.

More neocon lies from the likes of Steve Brill, veteran centrist journalist and author, his co-CEO Gordon Crovitz is a former Wall Street Journal columnist. After Brill, its second-biggest investor, along with his father, is Nick Penniman, the liberal publisher, and the third-biggest is Publicis Group, a multinational advertising agency.

Meanwhile, its advisory board includes Tom Ridge, the first-ever Homeland Security chief, and developer of another famous color-coded system, the terror alert, and Michael Hayden, the CIA director, also under George W. Bush. There are also several Obama and Clinton-era figures.

Daily Mail and German "Bildzeitung" green?
Thank you, do not need that

Do not use this add-on. It contains spyware, e.g. Google Analytics.

As it does not use Google Analytics' AnonymizeIP option, this add-on is illegal in the European Union, as is the corresponding website: https://privacyscore.org/site/135929/

Doesn't update very opinionated too.

Addon discutibile, giornale di sinistra = attendibile, di destra= non attendibile.

Provata e a prima vista molto deludente (sembra solo uno strumento di propaganda), non basta che sia un quotidiano famoso e registrato per rendere le notizie: vere. Poi SI e NO è limitativo, sulla voce "Non pubblica ripetutamente notizie false" sarebbe bene avere una scala logaritmica da 1 a 10 per valutare quante notizie non verificate sono pubblicate. Non ripetutamente può anche essere una notizia falsa e non verificata alla settimana.

Non prenderà piede, senza aprire a qualche funzione social come votazioni da parte degli utenti / lettori sulle testate stesse.

Manca poi una voce sull'indipendenza politica, che è la vera piaga di molti quotidiani Italiani. soprattutto per le notizie che omettono di dare.

Sarebbe più utile un sistema simile ai filtri anti-spam, dove il punteggio è più complesso e presenta anche informazioni su quante fake-news sono state pubblicate e quanti giorni sono passati dall'ultimo evento. Invece semplici SI / NO basati solo sull'autorevolezza della fonte.