> "Yours is yet another comment arguing from the faulty premise that "fakenews" describes sites like Breitbart." No, that's not my argument. My argument is tha

> "Yours is yet another comment arguing from the faulty premise that "fakenews" describes sites like Breitbart." No, that's not my argument. My argument is that what can start with filtering out spammy clickbait can easily evolve into filtering out sites that other people take seriously. For example, Huffington Post is a news site that uses a lot of the same tactics as clickbait spammers, and tends to be fairly one sided in their worldview. To someone who disagrees with the worldview of the Huffington Post, why would they be less inclined to block it once the tools are in place? In other words, once the tools are in place to block content everyone agrees is spammy, I can pretty much guarantee that those same tools will be used for semi-spammy content that some people treat as real news. This will almost certainly lead to increased political polarisation. There's an alternative tool that works fairly well... if you see clickbait, remember that's what it is. We should aim to rise above low-information sites by providing better-thought-out counter-arguments. As for your cialis example, if it was posted in a public forum like Facebook then responding to the article might not change the habits of those trying to sell you something, but it might make other people who read your comment think twice about signing up.