Given the past news about facebook and fake data and users / trust issues people have with them etc. etc. how seriously and with how much legitimacy can one tak

Given the past news about facebook and fake data and users / trust issues people have with them etc. etc. how seriously and with how much legitimacy can one take a dataset from them? further you read this: Analyses Performed: >>> Noting that the data provided was already attributed to the GRU by Facebook <<< , researchers: • evaluated the content within the folders (within Pages) • investigated relationships across folders (between Pages) • evaluated the content, and closely-related content, as it appeared elsewhere on the internet and on other social networks, assessing narrative, authorship, and distribution patterns • evaluated the content against the previously-provided SSCI IRA data set, to ascertain the extent to which there were thematic, temporal, metadata, or collateral-based similarities between the operations (this process is ongoing and will be addressed further in subsequent papers). ---- So, researchers/investigators started their complete methodology based upon the assumption facebook is/was correct in their attribution, didn't complete their research, and subsequently went on to write a paper about it. Not saying theres no troll farms / fake news farms and other such practices, by private and government entities, but every time someone post anyone about it, the data is worthless, and often important items like how was this attributed to a specific entity, are completely left out. What is anyone supposed to take from such a write up? There's nothing to learn, just to assume from it... - that's practically on par with what they are writing about...