Microsoft has partnered with NewsGuard to warn users of its Edge mobile browser about fake news. And I just had to see what that looked like.
As you may have seen, Microsoft quietly added the NewsGuard fake news detection service to the mobile (Android and iOS) versions of the Microsoft Edge web browser. (Users of Edge on the desktop can manually install a NewsGuard extension if they’d like to experience this functionality in Windows 10.) This move is controversial on a number of levels: Though the NewsGuard functionality is not enabled by default on mobile, it is, in fact, included in the product when you download Edge from Google’s or Apple’s online store. For this reason, I feel that Microsoft is still the responsible party here, despite its protestations to the contrary.
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
News of this integration came after the UK’s The Daily Mail, the type of publication that devalued journalism to a degree that has since become common on blogs, complained that it had been flagged by Edge on mobile as untrustworthy.
Intrigued, I enabled NewsGuard in Microsoft Edge on Android. To do so, navigate to More (“…”) > Settings > News rating and enable the option “Display ratings on address bar.”
Now, when you navigate to a website in Edge mobile, a shield icon will appear in the address bar, alerting you to the site’s trustworthiness rating. Thurrott.com gets an empty/blank shield, presumably because it has not been rated.
The New York Times gets a green shield, noting that “this website maintains basic standards of accuracy and accountability.”
I happen to disagree with that, given its bogus health reporting.
In fact, I’ll give you a perfect and recent example of how this publication routinely deceives and confuses its readers: On January 4, The New York Times reported that marijuana use came with serious mental and physical health risks and that the push to legalize it throughout the United States should be stopped. Then, a week later, it reported that fears about the health risks were overblown and that “speculation and fear should be replaced with the best evidence available.” Classic New York Times.
Anyway. The Daily News fares less well, with a red shield.
This denotes that this publication “generally fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability.” And when you select a “See the full Nutrition label,” whatever that means, you’re told that the Daily Mail is a “British tabloid newspaper” that “repeatedly publishes false information and has been forced to pay damages in numerous high-profile cases.” Ouch. Scroll down, and it just keeps going.
I can see why The Daily Mail is upset. But I can also see that The Daily Mail is a terrible publication that, again, led the way to the terrible “news” we see on blogs of all kinds every day now.
What I can’t see is why Microsoft would provide this functionality in its own web browser. I’ve already made the case that Microsoft itself publishes fake news—mainly as ads that pose as stories—on its own news sites/services. But Microsoft’s news sites/services have also delivered malware, as recently as this past week, because it allows ads to pose as stories and it clearly doesn’t do a great job of curating what gets published through those entry points. Ultimately, this is a matter of trust.
In any event, I like the idea of this functionality, generally speaking. But as an add-in the user chooses, not as something that’s just built-in to the browser. I figure the issue on mobile is that Edge, like Chrome and Safari, doesn’t support extensions. So the only way to get this feature into the browser is to just include it. And to Microsoft’s credit, it is an opt-in feature, and not enabled by default.
That’s fine. But it’s still Microsoft’s responsibility. So when I write that Microsoft—and not NewsGuard—is punishing The Daily Mail, that’s exactly what I mean. And maybe they deserve it.
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399314">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>These publications aren't primarily being judged on the basis of how they report specialized scientific material, but rather how they report on topics that have a wide interest to the general public.</p><p><br></p><p>The existence of topics for which a definite answer is difficult to come by, doesn't preclude the many others the truth of which can be easily determined. Thus while the importance of nature vs nurture can be debated, the falsehood of a story that claimed a pizza parlor was part of a child trafficking ring cannot.</p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#399198">In reply to paul-thurrott:</a></em></blockquote><p>It isn't a "cute" delineation. A news source making that delineation is one of the criteria that News Guard uses when evaluating a site. I think that you tried to pass off both as reporting in your criticism (presumably hoping no one would bother to click through) speaks more to the quality of this site than either News Guard of NYT. </p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#399327">In reply to mikes_infl:</a></em></blockquote><p>Newspapers having an Editorial/Opinion sections predates the American Civil War. Claiming that it all just used to be considered "reporting" is just inaccurate. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399270">In reply to glenn8878:</a></em></blockquote><p>"Does not repeatedly publish false content"</p><p><br></p><p>It seems quite clear to me. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399605">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't recall any major news organization claiming "There was no Watergate cover-up", so what's the basis for saying "it was false until it wasn't". </p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#399270">In reply to glenn8878:</a></em></blockquote><p>Correcting or clarifying errors is not the same as false content</p><p><br></p><p>Examples:</p><p><br></p><p>Publish a story saying the "Abraham Lincoln lead the Martian invasion of Saturn" would be false content. </p><p><br></p><p>Including the following in an article:</p><p>"Abraham Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862"</p><p>And then correcting it to </p><p><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Abraham Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation in September of 1862"</span></p><p>with a note stating you edited the article with the correction is correcting and clarifying. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399311">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>On the contrary, all of science is based on the assumption that truth <em>is </em>knowable. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399328">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>OK, but since metaphysical truth has nothing to do with science, it doesn't make sense to say "in the strictest scientific sense…". You could say "in the strictest metaphysical sense". I don't see String Theory being in the realm of metaphysics, it's just a theory that may or may not be proven true in the future. </p><p><br></p><p>At the atomic and sub-atomic level, models have been developed that can be useful for a variety of purposes but they don't necessarily describe physical reality. Chemistry has quite effectively taken advantage of the traditional atomic model but we don't really think electrons are tiny planets orbiting around the nucleus. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399363">In reply to hrlngrv:</a></em></blockquote><p>It wasn't my intention to get into an in-depth discussion of science. I was just pointing out that truth being unknowable isn't a scientific principle as you suggested it was. In the context of this discussion of rating news sources, neither metaphysical truth nor contingent truth have much bearing on the topic.</p>
Thom77
<p>Let's cut through the BS here Thurott.</p><p><br></p><p>We all know why NYT , CNN, MSNBC, DailyKos, Huffington Post, Buzz feed will all have green shields.</p><p><br></p><p>This isn't about fake news. This isn't about integrity or informing the public responsibly.</p><p><br></p><p>This is about CONTROLLING INFORMATION. </p><p><br></p><p>Let's stop the naivety here. I respect your mature and fair opinion on this issue, but there is a huge elephant in the room you seem to be avoiding. </p><p><br></p><p>This is political at its heart.</p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#399269">In reply to Thom77:</a></em></blockquote><p>"We all know why NYT , CNN, MSNBC, DailyKos, Huffington Post, Buzz feed will all have green shields."</p><p><br></p><p>Just a suggestion, you might want to fact check these things prior to posting because that statement is incorrect. </p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399269">In reply to Thom77:</a></em></blockquote><p>As provision asked, did you actually check this? If true, it might be because some of these publications do a pretty good job at being accurate. Not perfect, of course. </p><p><br></p><p>Your wholesale rejection of so many news sites suggests that you just don't like reading what you disagree with. Your claim that rating sites is "controlling information" would be like saying that if Paul gives a bad review of a product, it can't be sold. </p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399351">In reply to delicieuxz:</a></em></blockquote><p>If you think anything you said in your comment proves that "NewsGuard is a US propaganda tool, directed by US intel agencies" you set the bar very low for evidence. Those Intel agencies would have to be very confused trying to figure out if they are suppose to do what Bush, Clinton, and Obama would want them to do given that they don't agree on much. The fact is they probably don't give a s**t what former presidents want.</p>
chump2010
<p>I don't get the big outrage about this. The President of the USA frequently declares an outlet of news as fake news and very few people worry about it. A group of people create an app that declares an outlet of news as lying and everyone gets super annoyed about it. </p><p><br></p><p>There is precedence for letting a third party organisation decide what is true or not when it comes to news. In the UK we have fullfact, in the US you have politifcat.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399495">In reply to WaltC:</a></em></blockquote><p>Anonymous sources have been used for decades, they aren't something that was invented to persecute Trump. We would be poorly informed without them.</p><p><br></p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#399515">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>Ohh.. but it was only on insignificant things like Watergate, nothing really big :)</p><p><br></p><p><br></p>
skane2600
<blockquote><em><a href="#399601">In reply to Greg Green:</a></em></blockquote><p>I don't think we know if that's the case or not. Were there multiple "Deep Throats" during the Watergate scandal? What's important is whether a story is accurate, not how many sources were used or whether they are identified.</p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#399624">In reply to skane2600:</a></em></blockquote><p>It's kind of insane. There is a cottage industry out there that's purpose it is discredit the media. One of the more recent tricks is go after "anonymous sources". In doing so they prey on the general population's ignorance. Sadly people are too willing to jump on that bandwagon rather than take a minute to look into what they are being told. Ironic right? They are swallowing propaganda hook, line and sinker while accusing something else of being propaganda. The reality is large media outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post have published Ethics and Standards that spell out how they deal with things like sources, anonymous sources, corrections … If people took the time to read them they might be less likely to run around internet forums announcing how little they know by saying things that are just demonstrably false. They remind me of people that like to say "but evolution is just a theory" as if science uses the lay definition of theory and it doesn't have a very specific meaning with respect to science. It's all just intellectually dishonest. </p>