> By pretending that the presented data is sufficient to say that Republicans tweet more misinformation... Or, you'd also have to admit that the conclusion may

> By pretending that the presented data is sufficient to say that Republicans tweet more misinformation... Or, you'd also have to admit that the conclusion may yet be correct, even if it isn't justified by the data they've collected and the analysis. Even an unjustified true belief is still true (I'm not saying the article/study is correct, just based on your analysis we also don't know that it is actually a false conclusion). But your point is an interesting one in that when dealing with "misinformation", you'd expect some case-by-case assessment rather marking a tweet misinformation because it linked to a domain that is "more likely than average to spread misinformation". I imagine this is really a proxy for whether the outlet depends primarily on official sources (e.g. access to government officials) or whether it contradicts them. In which case, you'd have to ask yourself why a politician would choose one outlet or another?