It doesn't mean that but it should always be treated as a possible factor, and analyzed in light of other connections. Collusion is very real when billions of dollars are on the line and it is naive to assume otherwise.

>It doesn't mean that but it should always be treated as a possible factor, and analyzed in light of other connections.

But do you not see how this will result in conspiracy theories? You are no longer engaging with the merits of a study and are instead questioning the motivations and source behind that study. You are shifting from a more objective argument to a more subjective one allow more room for conspiracy theories.

>Collusion is very real when billions of dollars are on the line and it is naive to assume otherwise.

Yes, which is why "do your own research" is often misleading because those billions of dollars have greatly impacted what research is available to you.

Ok, let's look at a scenario. If a board member of a powerful pharmaceutical company was also a chief executive at a news organization responsible for "fact-checking" claims about that company's medicines, would it be inappropriate to wonder about financial incentives?

You seem to only be looking at the surface of this issue. I agree that it is appropriate to be concerned about conflict of interest, but what happens when you take it one step further beyond your comment? I decide to "do my own research" and plug the drug's name into Google. The top site that comes up is the same news organization's fact check because no one else has a financial incentive to investigate this issue and report the truth. Me "doing my own research" leads me to the same biased information. The "do your own research" portion doesn't fix anything.

I’d be willing to bet that most people with the gall to do their own research will look beyond the first result that appears on the SERP...

It’s fundamentally an epistemological question: what is the ontological basis for thinking we know something?

>I’d be willing to bet that most people with the gall to do their own research will look beyond the first result that appears on the SERP...

Once again this is thinking that doesn't go beyond the first layer. If this situation is possible for the first link, it is possible for the second and the third and everything on the first 5 pages. However deep this hypothetical researcher is willing to go, if there are enough billions at stake the manipulator can keep pumping out misinformation. They have a financial incentive to lie and no one has a strong financial incentive for truth so how does this researcher find the needle of truth in the haystack of lies?

It goes far beyond the first layer, to the ultimate layer: what is the basis of our presuppositions about knowledge? How do we authenticate what we think we know?

We fundamentally can’t for most of our knowledge given the complexities of the modern world. Which is why the whole “do your own research” suggestion is BS. There simply isn’t enough time in the day to become an expert in everything in order to be able to accurately judge the validity of most research. That is why stopping the spread of misinformation has value because most people do not have the expertise to identify all misinformation.

“It’s too complicated for you to understand, we will mediate truth for you” is the language of priests.