Our experts justify censorship of actual news with fake science to help Democrats

Our “disinformation experts” are at it again, this time churning out a whole passel of pseudoscience under the aegis of once-respected Nature magazine to prove that icky, stupid right-wingers are dumb dumb dummies and that they deserve to be banned from X!Not like the supergeniuses of the modern left, who always get everything right and never tell lies. A new study — presumably peer reviewed — purports to show that Trump supporters and conservatives shared “low quality” news more often than their more enlightened counterparts and thus deserved the “politically asymmetric” sanctions. All five of the authors list themselves as “Google Scholars,” by the way: In other words, they have the seal of approval from the Big Tech outfit whose AI turned out to generate images of black Nazis and female Asian Vikings to serve the cause of “equity” at the expense of the truth.And this study is another case of “garbage in, garbage out”: A huge part of its definition of “low quality” seems to mean sources that don’t rely on “fact checking” — which as the past eight years have shown has become a spurious and utterly partisan endeavor.Curious about what misinformation these “low quality” sites are spreading? Here’s a sample: the “unambiguously false” claim (per a paper cited in the Nature study) that “COVID-19 was created in a lab.”Trouble is, this “unambiguous” falsehood is (per the US federal government) true. Unsurprisingly, the No.

1 “high quality” news source shared by lefty users in the study was The New York Times.Right-leaning users shared Fox most often. Quickly: Which of those sources on balance has been more correct since 2016?The Times was wrong about Russiagate, writing story after story on Donald Trump’s alleged collusion based on obviously fake documents and never once apologizing for its journalistic malpractice.It was wrong about COVID on pretty much every aspect of the pandemic, from the efficacy...