"Blaming the "fake news on the internet" for the loss to Trump is just the Left's way to divert attention to their own failures to report fairly or even try to

"Blaming the "fake news on the internet" for the loss to Trump is just the Left's way to divert attention to their own failures to report fairly or even try to understand his popularity without dismissing or smearing everyone as racists, homo-phobes and misogynists." Uh as for Trump being misogynist, the fact he's okay with groping women without consent that's pretty much a classic case of it if I ever heard it. As for racism, you'll have to admit him declining to rent his properties to African Americans comes with racial bias either or not you like it (this doesn't make him literally KKK/Hitler/Red-Skull but it still makes him a jerk). And as for homophobia, it's misdirected at the man himself but his VP is clearly a homophobe that should've been ejected from the ticket if he was serious about supporting LGBT rights (and he would oppose FADA and support the Equal Rights Amendment). So, he has much to answer for on that front. As for the rest of your statement, Snowden pointing out the issue of the lack of veracity in online news is a huge problem. Overtly fake news is just the tip of the iceberg since many "factual" news outlets have sloppy or no fact checking of articles and often depend on clickbaity headlines to generate views for ad revenue. Oddly enough, this comes part and parcel with the business model these outlets have chosen to operate under rather finding one which could alleviate the need to become Fox News on steroids. "Private companies cannot practice censorship so Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Breitbart, etc. are all free to establish their own policies on what to carry on their properties." This is patently false. Private censorship by definition is still censorship. It just legal censorship. "Keep a close eye on any FCC proposals because now that they have regulatory control over the internet[1] the legal authority is already in place to censor the internet. If they start floating regulations or even "suggestions" that claim we have to vet the "news" for the "public-good" look out[2]. You have been warned." I doubt anyone is going to propose such a system on the FCC board since they're busy with the open set box and zero rating regulations at this moment. Plus, SCOTUS already nuked that option decades ago in a series of cases related to the Fairness Doctrine, so there's no going back even with the most liberal of justices. They'd have to make a good argument for it to stick beyond "cause I said so."