For the conservatives who are mad about this: yes, it is possible for a story to be factually accurate *and* for it to be part of a misinformation campaign aimed at undermining confidence in an election. https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1326020882112786432

Take Breitbart, for example. All week, they have been getting huge engagement with stories about election-related "glitches," and Republicans protesting the results. In some cases, they're just repeating what a politician said.

Most of these stories aren't "false," per se. Many have been reported elsewhere. But if you look at how they're framing and serving them up ("BAM," "REVEALED," "JUST IN") and what facts they aren't including, it's obvious they know what they're doing.

The people who run these pages know that they can't claim outright that the election was stolen, because Facebook's fact-checkers might ding them. So they do the just-asking-questions thing, and use "discussion threads" and cherrypicked headlines to accomplish the same thing.

There's a big audience for these stories. Big conservative influencers (in the case of these two Breitbart stories, Trump himself) post them to their pages, generating tens of thousands of engagements and a huge swell in traffic.

The people at Breitbart might not personally believe that the election was stolen. But they're egging on the president, and feeding a hyperpartisan ecosystem that is telling millions of people that it was stolen, because it's good for engagement.

We need a better word than "misinformation" to distinguish between totally false stories and true stories that are published in service of an attempt to mislead people. But nobody who studies this stuff is confused by what's happening.