Consider the fact that they only looked at twitter a scientific limitation too.

> On twitter

is litterally in the papres title, they dont claim to represent public discourse in its entirety.

> Limitations and future directions

> Several limitations should be noted. First, our sample may contain systematic differences from a fully representative sample.

Your argument is nothing but a fluffy ad hoc reaction which ironically imho enables these supersharers.

It’s not fake news. They’re telling you exactly what they did. It’s called a caveat.

It’s called X now!

I mean the subtitle at the very top of the article literally says "Less than 1% of Twitter users posted 80% of misinformation about the 2020 U.S. presidential election" so it seemed pretty clear to me. No fake news here.

Even less clickbaity title:

Most Republicans didn't share misinformation about the 2020 U.S. presidential election on Twitter.