Replies

And if you went to the actual article on IQfy.com, you would have noticed that there is no date on it. Not June 2023 or even January 2023. There is no author listed either. So who published it first?

I looked at the page code for both The Conversation and IQfy. I downloaded the IQfy article and changed the extension to .txt so I could look at it in MS word. Trying to look at it in a web browser didn't work too well, and posting HTML in comments turns it into HTML unless converting the HMTL to non-HTML characters which is a pain, so bear with me.

The Conversation article has its publication date on the page, and in the page source code there is "pubdate" "20230106". The IQfy page code has "article:published_time" of "2023-01-23".

The Conversation article was published January 6. Then the IQfy was published two weeks later on January 23, the same day as the tweets with the fake screenshots attributing it to The Conversation. Most of the comments on IQfy are likely paid fake comments to give the appearance of going viral.

Sites like this are not anti-vaccine, conspiracy, or one side of a issue creating fakes to discredit the other. This is outrage bait, click bait for ad revenue, and plagiarism.