Criteria for including a website in the database

We create a list of websites, with respect to which the members of our Review Board have doubts regarding their credibility and content quality.

It is entirely up to you whether you agree with our list and whether you choose to use it. The list was compiled by members of the commission based on expert evaluations of websites according to clearly defined criteria derived from scientific consensus, verifiable facts, and fundamental principles of media and journalistic ethics. Members of the commission carry out this work voluntarily, based on their belief in its overall social benefit.

In our database, you will find websites that, according to the commission, meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. 1.

   The website contains fraudulent, pseudoscientific, misleading, or quackery-related materials, such as “miracle” cures, magical remedies, as well as the denial or distortion of scientific knowledge. The criterion is demonstrable contradiction with current scientific understanding, especially when such information may lead to neglect or rejection of necessary and verified treatment, directly or indirectly harm health, or result in social, political, or economic damage. This does not apply to verified alternative treatment methods, promotion of a healthy lifestyle, nature-based approaches, and similar practices.

2. 2.

   The website contains false or disinformation news and deceptive propaganda, i.e., claims that contradict facts, such as photographs and videos used in misleading contexts, fabricated or seriously distorted events, etc. Inclusion applies to repeated or systematic spreading of false or disinforming claims, not to isolated errors that were subsequently transparently corrected.

3. 3.

   The website contains conspiracy theories and “delusions” that may have serious political, economic, or health consequences, without critical evaluation.

4. 4.

   The website contains vulgar language, calls for violence, extremist content, incitement of hatred, dehumanization, spreading of false alarms, aggressive personal attacks (e.g., “settling scores”), and defamation of entire groups of people, including women, minorities, races, nationalities, religious groups, etc.

5. 5.

   The website long-term and systematically fails to respect basic principles of journalistic ethics and transparency: it does not publish corrections of false or misleading claims; it leaves objectively disproven reports available without correction; it lacks clear ownership and authorship (while protection of sources and the use of pseudonyms are respected); it does not publish responses from affected parties; it crudely mixes news and commentary; it repeatedly publishes shocking false claims to increase traffic and then promptly corrects them; it fails to cite information sources, etc.

These criteria will be gradually supplemented and revised based on practical experience. Our primary goal is to protect advertisers and their interests.

Our database is purely advisory in nature, and it is the responsibility of each advertiser to consider how to use it. It represents a qualified assessment based on publicly available information and the expert subjective judgment of commission members and does not constitute a legal determination of the unlawfulness of the evaluated content.

Last update: February 2026