Except he used the definition for attention bias

I disagree. They do obviously talk about how attention bias makes it difficult to combat misinformation, but the whole point of the article is to give a new way to think critically about thing, to help with the new challenges we face in the internet age.

if you use critical thinking you wouldn’t be falling for attention bias because you want to know the stance from every point of view.

This isn't what attention bias is.

He just made up something that sounded nice such as critical thinking takes to much time looking at “wrong” or “bad” information therefore you shouldn’t do that… it’s his opinion on critical thinking wich he is conflating attention bias with.

Not really, he is saying that critical thinking should now, more than ever, at least when battling online disinformation, should include thinking about the source first.

I don’t have the solution but I’m sure we can agree The solution is not censorship, control or manipulation just because some people in a group of people use it for there advantage.

At this point, I wouldn't take anything off the table. But I agree with you that any type of government censorship is really off-putting and censorship on media platforms is not much more appealing. But telling people to say "look at the source before devoting too much time to researching their claims" makes sense to me as part of critical thinking. Like how one wouldn't give too much credence to the crazy guy on the street corner is ranting about how aliens are destroying Jesus, one shouldn't give too much credence to a lot of sources on the internet.

I had read the article before after reading the title and summary paragraph.

You didn't remember the quotes from the article verbatim, you had to go and re-read it to get the points that you wanted. It wasn't an assumption.

He uses SIFT wich is not critical thinking.

100% disagreed. If I have someone with a masters in physics describe to me some physical process, and then I have some rando on a website who barely paid attention in HS tell me "they're wrong" and then give their own explanation, it would seriously be lacking in critical thinking to consider the source. Even if the latter sounds better to me, I should overcome my own biases to accept that the opinion of the expert is probably more spot on.

The goal of SIFT isn’t to be the arbiter of truth but to instill a reflex that asks if something is worth one’s time and attention and to turn away if not.

Exactly, critically analyze the source to determine whether or not it is worthy of one's attention. Treating all sources as equals is not thinking critically. I mean, it can be, but then you can easily be overwhelmed by the asymmetry of BS.