Merely presenting an unorthodox perspective on the news doesn't exactly qualify, though it may be "harmful" in the broader, more elliptical sense of the word. You might say we're generous with the upper range here, but the site can be seen as helpful to some users looking for an alternative source of information that redeems it in some way. These are not instructions for quality raters to remove or censor Infowars, even if they had the ability to do so. Nor do they explicitly say, as Cernovich wrote, that all Infowars pages should be rated "
low quality" or "low to average." In fact, the instructions make it clear that reviewers should consider many things when rating a page: Remember that every news outlet that's been around long enough has courted its fair share of controversies and mistakes. What we ask you to do here jewelry retouching service is to ensure that the line between reliability and outright disregard of facts is walked when applying your best judgment. This comes after a comparison of this particular article with a similar article on CNN.
He cites elements that the CNN article contains that the Infowars article lacks as part of the reasoning for Infowars' lower rating. Potentially, a different Infowars item could be given a higher rating based on its particular merits. To recap: no call for banning. No delisting calls. No call for censorship. Nothing that quality assessors could do. There's not even an explicit call to mark all Infowars pages as "low" quality. Google cancels the example While there's no censorship involved here,