While the article is easy to believe, I'd prefer it was phrased more precisely. For example: > news publishers known for putting out misinformation got six tim

While the article is easy to believe, I'd prefer it was phrased more precisely. For example: > news publishers known for putting out misinformation got six times the amount of likes, shares, and interactions on the platform as did trustworthy news sources If a publisher is known for putting out misinformation (and what is the threshold?), that does not mean all their stories are false. To make the claim in the title, the shared articles would have to be individually evaluated for truthfulness. The second thing that stuck out to me (emphasis mine): > The researchers also found that the statistically significant misinformation boost is politically neutral — misinformation-trafficking pages on both the far left and the far right generated much more engagement from Facebook users than factual pages of any political slant. But publishers on the right have a much higher propensity to share misleading information than publishers in other political categories, the study found. The paragraph switches from talking about misinformation (which I understand to be information that is false), to misleading information, which is a far more vague categorization. Notably, any kind of disfavored statistic, that is grudgingly conceded to be factual, tends to be called "misleading", either for failing to adjust for enough factors, or for implying some cause or conspiracy, or for measuring something you shouldn't care about in the first place.