Thread by @StillDelvingH

I read this so you didn’t have to.
Welcome to “disinformation debunking 1.0.1” -a practical exemple
Chapter 1: “Misleading headline”
What he means his:
- The study I mention can’t be trusted
- The 90% Twitter bots I’m mentioning are actually 90% of the English-language tweets.

Disinfo debunking 1.0.1 -a practical exemple
Chapter 2: “Since the study I quoted doesn’t support my claim, let’s invent evidence”
The main Ukrainian newspaper in English, providing hourly updates on the invasion, suddenly got plenty of views after the invasion started?
FiShY

Disinfo debunking 1.0.1 -a practical exemple
Chapter 3: “BTW I’m one of Russia’s shill”
Could be the “sceptic” quoting a study he himself deems unreliable because it doesn’t support his claims is “a bit” partisan and “not quite” reliable

So here you are
Either you can trust the misleading presentation of a misleading article
Or you can go straight to Disinfo debunking 1.0.1 -a practical example, Chapter 4: “Enough said, let’s not waste any more time with unreliable sources not even trying to make sense”

“BuT iSn’T iT FiShY tHaT MoSt pEoPLe NoT OnLy cArE BuT sUpPorT UkRAiNe?”

Well no
Turns out most people ain’t idiots or c*nts

(Please understand: For some people, given the company they usually keep, that’s actually #breakingnews)

https://twitter.com/euan_macdonald/status/1570425532457824256