4 ms·

This is an interesting idea, but their conclusion could be a coincidence. They might have inadvertently just been covering a standard slide into extremism from

This is an interesting idea, but their conclusion could be a coincidence. They might have inadvertently just been covering a standard slide into extremism from normal users, and the fact correction response might not have had an effect on the users. Also, political facts / misinformation is very hard to judge accurately. For example, just a few months ago, Politifact was calling the "lab leak" hypothesis a "Pants on fire" falsehood. Now, it is being presented as a possibility. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2021/05/20/politifact-backtracks-factcheck-over-covid19-lab-leak-hypothesis-n2589771 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2021/05/20/politifa... This study also appears to have had no control group. Odd.

blendergeek 5y ago
> Also, political facts / misinformation is very hard to judge accurately. For example, just a few months ago, Politifact was calling the "lab leak" hypothesis a "Pants on fire" falsehood. Now, it is being presented as a possibility. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2021/05/20/politifact-backtracks-factcheck-over-covid19-lab-leak-hypothesis-n2589771 https://townhall.com/tipsheet/juliorosas/2021/05/20/politifa... Townhall.com is a right-leaning conservative publication, both by their own admission [0] and according Media Bias Fact Check [1]. Due to the political nature of the source, some may ignore Townhall entirely. Rather than cite a secondary source, I would cite Politifact directly [2]. [0] https://townhall.com/aboutus https://townhall.com/aboutus [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/townhall/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/townhall/ [2] https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/ https://www.politifact.com/li-meng-yan-fact-check/