While debating what is a "fake news" site. Maybe it's also time to revisit the debate what is a "news" site... Organizations that do original journalism and ne

While debating what is a "fake news" site. Maybe it's also time to revisit the debate what is a "news" site... Organizations that do original journalism and news reporting seem to be struggling financially. Meanwhile, many popular sites now considered legitimate "news sites" don't do much original journalism of their own and instead they are mainly just curating or aggregating news from those original news sites. (I'm not talking about sites like HN or reddit, I'm referring to large popular sites with "articles" where they're rewriting/spinning/summarizing news stories found elsewhere, then linking somewhere in their "article" to the original news site, lastly they add the most sensationalist clickbait headline they can come up with!) News curation/aggregation sites offer a service people want, they are usually free to read, and copyright law cases have determined what they are doing is legal. Facebook and Google clearly have a huge amount of power here. I support them taking action against fake news sites (I do look forward reading details what that means and how they do this). But it's not just FBerg and Googy at fault here, part of the reason things have gotten this bad is the slippery slope where "real" newspapers, news-agencies and other organizations that have trained journalists doing original news reporting have let themselves be overrun by sites using their work without appropriate compensation or recognition. They have also fallen behind on the tech skills needed to deliver news on the noisy interwebs, and they have not pushed to revisit copyright laws that aren't working for anyone as intended.