trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Accounts sharing misinformation receive higher engagement per follower than high credibility accounts on major social platforms.

the verdict
CONTESTED PARTIAL
Recorded sources
3 sources for · 2 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that accounts sharing misinformation receive higher engagement per follower than high credibility accounts on major social platforms?

Partly. Two multi-platform studies report greater relative engagement with low-credibility or unreliable content on most platforms, while two health-content analyses find engagement metrics only weakly related to information quality. None measures engagement per follower, so the claim is only partially addressed.

Verdict: CONTESTED PARTIAL · 3 sources for, 2 against · Last checked

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

Evidence for · 3
Get citation
Misinformation in the Gaza war. (n.d.). en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_in_the_Gaza_war

Evidence against · 2
2026
Get citation
R, H., J, J., P, Y., Y, Y., Y, X., A, P., J, Y., & X, C. (2026). Quality and Reliability of Social Media Videos on Weight-Loss Interventions for Obstructive Sleep Apnea: A Multi-Platform Cross-Sectional Study.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.2147/nss.s599776

See more details
More for · 2
2023
Get citation
Corsi, G. (2023). Evaluating Twitter’s algorithmic amplification of low-credibility content: an observational study. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00456-3

2025
Get citation
S, S., M, F., W, Q., & M, C. (2025). Relative engagement with sources of climate misinformation is growing across social media platforms.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-03082-9

More against · 1
2026
Get citation
X, W., Z, S., Z, Z., L, Z., D, Z., & M, C. (2026). Short-form video platforms as a source of ankylosing spondylitis information: a cross-sectional content analysis.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2026.1757584

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work