> You'll notice so many posts here that deny the existence of fake news, or attempt to redefine it as "bias." That's a hyperbole -- most of the dissidents here

> You'll notice so many posts here that deny the existence of fake news, or attempt to redefine it as "bias." That's a hyperbole -- most of the dissidents here do not deny that completely fake stories occur, but express valid concerns about what kind of things will be labeled as facts or not. Based on what we've already seen (the WaPo list, for example), there are publications they would like to censor with very good track records, including the "Ron Paul Liberty Report." Production budget aside, that's often the first source that reports on interesting new bills submitted to the House, such as the recent pre-authorization for invasion of Iran bill. This is not a fake fact -- you can see it on the House website. And there aren't supporting examples of fakeness provided by WaPo for their list, even though I could find numerous factual errors by WaPo or NYT, like the power grid hacking or Aleppo (usually fixed within a few days, but still). And of course, there's the fact that powerful propaganda does not need to stem from provably false facts -- it uses selection/omission of stories and crafting heavily-opinionated narratives to 'mislead.' That is just as concerning as fake facts, and a poor attempt to stem the latter would most likely end up stifling unpopular opinions and further empower the propaganda you see on major sources like WaPo/FoxNews.