[soundwave106]

In the above news article, there is a direct link to the magazine with the study. The direct link to the study is here: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau4586

The study appeared to correlate two sources to determine the nature of fake news:

A) The primary source was a list of fake news sites compiled by Buzzfeed Media: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fa...

B) The study was cross-checked with a list of sites from a peer reviewed paper (H. Allcott, M. Gentzkow, Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 31, 211–236 (2017)) and according to the paper was similar.

There is some additional methodology in the study link.

[asabjorn]

Thanks! Buzfeed believes in far-left progressive views and is not known for objective reporting, so using this as a primary source for classifications of fake news would predetermine this outcome.

With this in mind I think we can't trust the studys conclusion.

[fzeroracer]

Why don't you address the actual study instead of disregarding it on a partisan basis?

[octernion]

old misogynists sharing "wikileaks CONFIRMS hillary sold weapons to ISIS!!!!" being fake news is absolutely a far-left take on reality, hahaha. how are you so bad at this.