>These nuances don't appear to affect how DuckDuckGo's users feel about Weinberg's announcement. At the time this piece was published, Weinberg's tweet about the "down-rank" has been replied to more than 10,000 times and received over 3,000 quote tweets. The tweet has less than 600 retweets.
I don't think 'users' is the operative word here. It's just sounds like the usual loud fringe that complains about everything.
Disinformation should be downrated. If I use a search engine, I should be able to find reliable information, not something that is artificially and falsely promoted. But I also need to be able to find it in case I want to do research, learn how Russians are thinking etc. I think DuckDuckGo has taken an appropriate approach.
'air quoting' an assertion implies doubt on the claim, yet it is precisely what DuckDuckGo are explicitly doing, which the article later explains. You can agree or disagree on DuckDuckGo's decisions here, but why insert doubt when there is none? This is a form of disinformation in and of itself, metapropaganda
Russian disinformation not Russian websites. So it’s correct.