spam4name

That's assuming that this kind of support isn't exactly what she might be going for. There's little that these groups salivate over more than someone part of the minority / protected communities backing them up and giving their claims undue legitimacy. "See, this one black person says that racism doesn't exist and that white privilege is a myth, take that libtards!"

She's a woman (check) in STEM (double check) who worked at numerous big tech companies that have been controversial for work culture and discrimination (triple check), so it's a wet dream for these groups to parade her around as legitimization of their rhetoric.

And conveniently for her, this is also often very lucrative. Look at the likes of Milo (the Jewish gay guy who doesn't think supremacist groups or discrimination are much of an issue) and Candace Owens (a black woman who doesn't believe in feminism and thinks racism is dead). They've gotten their fair share of books, TV shows, fundraisers, promotions, sponsorships, public engagements, connections in high places... It pays, and well too.

Fox News talkshow, here we come!

Exactly. I'm surprised I had to scroll this far down for this. Journalists that care about sharing their sources and explaining reasoning already do so simply by referencing in their article. This is already a thing in many high quality reliable outlets and OP's suggestion is more or less the same thing. Meanwhile, the journalists that (deliberately?) don't already include references or source their claims are not suddenly going to start doing so now. If anything, having to go to a different platform to cite materials seems like nothing more than another obstacle and wasted effort that might even discourage people from doing this.

Sorry OP, I appreciate the initiative but I A) don't see how this adds anything to journalists already linking their sources, B) don't think this is going to convince those who already don't do this to suddenly start citing their references and, even more so, doing it on another platform.

Source? That's an interesting study but based on how you present it, it could just be that conservatives might simply be more prone to putting out inaccurate statements.