I've been link-and-commenting a long time, and I can tell you that if it is not judging on an article basis, it's virtually useless. I can't think of a single thing this does that a one-second Google search and a few minutes of reading wouldn't do. I find clickbait and needless sensationalism at all news orgs now. I fear the subtle, small insertions of BS more than I fear the macro org philosophies. David Brooks at the Times, for instance ... the token 'reasonable' conservative. Partisanship as sugar-coated 'healthy' cereal.

Further, when you tell people the National Enquirer isn't 'real news', has it ever affected their popularity? Fox News? PragerU? I mean, really. When you push people who've posted a bad piece over to Snopes, what happens? A week later, they do the same again.

You need an audience that cares about accuracy of their news, who will expend one fingersworth of energy to Google a source and have the wits to parse what they find. I think that genie left the bottle a long time ago; people want news that agrees with their preexisting views (as fed to them through the boob tube).

Bottom line: If a social media org won't allow links from an red or amber news source, readers will just go elsewhere - you watch.

FactCheck.org already exists, and is a great resource. But few read it, fewer refer to it. The sensationalism of BS beckons to news orgs; they see $ signs.

America likes imagining their news as reporting on Patriots vs. Steelers; as if Republican/Democrat is a big football game. Filter one side away, they'll howl.

Some in Red states believe Russia is more their friend than 'traitorous' Democrats right now. Therein lies the problem that must be addressed. And it's not RT doing that, not Russia. Flag waving American media are doing that.

I long for the days of the Fairness Doctrine.