Again, specious platitudes that I could agree with in general in an ideal world, but do not apply to extreme politics and disinformation campaigns. The differen

Again, specious platitudes that I could agree with in general in an ideal world, but do not apply to extreme politics and disinformation campaigns. The difference between the journal “Nature” and Qanon is not “shading”. One genuinely intends to be true, and the other is purposely pushing information known to be false. One is open about it’s sources and methods, the other is not. One has a repeatable methodology, the other doesn’t. One puts their names on their publications, the other doesn’t. One is comfortable with subtlety and seeks truth, the other is a sales pitch that preys on fear and emotion. Suggesting they’re both shades of the same misinformation with the same flawed agendas and that you can’t get anything but misinformation ever is exactly what the most extreme right wing agenda wants; it has been systematically attacking public trust in science, and it’s working. This is precisely why ingesting it does not increase your chances of seeing truth, it only does damage and add FUD and confusion.