Serhii Nazarovets<p>A new study by Reijo Savolainen 🇫🇮 analysed over 1,000 public <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@Quora" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>Quora</span></a></span> posts discussing propaganda in the context of the <a href="https://mstdn.science/tags/RussoUkrainianWar" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>RussoUkrainianWar</span></a>: </p><p>:doi: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515251353174" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">doi.org/10.1177/01655515251353</span><span class="invisible">174</span></a></p><p>Nearly 80% of evaluations were critical. While Russian state sources and pro-Russian commentators faced deep distrust, outlets like <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://flipboard.com/@BBCNews" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>BBCNews</span></a></span>, <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://flipboard.com/@CNN" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>CNN</span></a></span> and <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://flipboard.social/@guardian" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>guardian</span></a></span> still earned relatively high trust. Even in a <a href="https://mstdn.science/tags/posttruth" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>posttruth</span></a> era, critical thinking isn’t dead. </p><p><a href="https://mstdn.science/tags/Propaganda" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Propaganda</span></a> <a href="https://mstdn.science/tags/Disinformation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Disinformation</span></a> <a href="https://mstdn.science/tags/DigitalLiteracy" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>DigitalLiteracy</span></a></p>