> Seaking generally, "fake news" is a real problem, though a more accurate term would perhaps be "poorly vetted" news. Undoubtedly. However I agree with Snopes

> Seaking generally, "fake news" is a real problem, though a more accurate term would perhaps be "poorly vetted" news. Undoubtedly. However I agree with Snopes here in that this was not "the" problem of why this election was lost. > I think that it's better to say that we're still not sure how to handle and adjust to a new world where data updates are instanateous for the general population Agree. I see that the landscape is changing quickly but how it is changing or the exactly reason need to be figured out. > Fake news in the context of it being poorly researches and poorly vetted is a real problem. Yeah, I like that Google and Facebook have started to attack the problem. I am a bit suspicious of those using this label all too quickly as it dilutes its meaning. > but man, it's really hard to sort through a lot of the information out there, especially when the majority of the populous is used to having a few definitive sources they can rely on for good hard hitting journalism. Agree. The lack of trust is the issue. I am guessing that's why the appeal of Wikileaks and email. Those can obviously be editorialized based on what's released and what isn't. However what is released can be considered as a reliable source. So in this environment of uncertainty, many probably saw raw email texts as one of the few instances of "valid" news (for better or for worse).