4 ms·
There's some proof, in the amount of shares (non-ironic ones) that these websites would get on Facebook. The abuse of the term is infuriating because the "fake
by rtpg 10y ago
There's some proof, in the amount of shares (non-ironic ones) that these websites would get on Facebook.
The abuse of the term is infuriating because the "fake news" websites are so clear cut, there shouldn't even be a debate. Some websites just make up facts to write a story, as their main source of stories. And there's no way CNN, Breitbart, MSNBC, any of them fit the claim.
- problems 10y agoI hear you, but I think some of that is some sort of blind support, rather than an informed opinion that many of the viewers would necessarily repeat. Just a matter of wanting to cheer your team on with no regard for fact or not. There's also a factor of people from the other side going there. Or people just curious. Overall, I don't think that it's a good idea to use mere traffic as a way to determine influence.
- ern 10y agoIn hindsight, the term Fake News wasn't a good one. "Organized [foreign] disinformation" is both more descriptive and would have been less easily appropriated and diluted.