> Similar to prior work, we rely on a source-level definition of fake news as domains that portray as legitimate news outlets but do not have the “editorial nor

> Similar to prior work, we rely on a source-level definition of fake news as domains that portray as legitimate news outlets but do not have the “editorial norms and processes for ensuring the accuracy and credibility of information.” We rely on the manually labeled list of fake news sites by Grinberg et al., updated using NewsGuard ratings, and demonstrate the robustness of the findings to different operationalizations. They don't define fake news as news that is wrong or intentionally deceptive, but by a blacklist of outlets they define as fake news outlets, or rather have been defined that way by a weird company. > NewsGuard approved sites include The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and BuzzFeed. Sites labeled as unreliable include InfoWars, the Daily Kos, Sputnik, RT, WikiLeaks, and Fox News. NewsGuard's founders cautioned that its "Nutrition Label" should not be treated as an endorsement equivalent to the nutrition facts label from the Food and Drug Administration. > Sites that had previously ignored the extension, such as MailOnline, objected to being listed as unreliable. The decision to list MailOnline as unreliable was reversed, and NewsGuard admitted they were wrong on some counts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsGuard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsGuard edit: i.e. they've used "science" to detect that upper-middle aged women share a lot of articles on social media (we used to refer to them as aunts), and that people in Arizona, Florida, and Texas are conservative.