I'd like to elaborate on carolegalassi's question.
One desperately wants a certain proposition to be true, for whatever reason. Then one deliberately cherry-picks websites (or other information sources), which will predictably validate that position, while avoiding any and all websites that are likely to have different perspectives. Then, on the basis of 'research' in any echo chamber, one shouts the foregone conclusion from the rooftops.
Yes, one is not knowingly spreading a falsehood. However one's choice to remain ignorant can have the same effect. Moreover the shrillness used in conveying the message is an indirect claim on having substantive knowledge on the question at hand.
In my opinion, that's morally equivalent to lying. What do you think?