I'm tempted to make a sarcastic, hyperbolic reply to this hyperbolic and aggressive comment, but in the spirit of hacker news I'll address the content directly.

I'm tempted to make a sarcastic, hyperbolic reply to this hyperbolic and aggressive comment, but in the spirit of hacker news I'll address the content directly. You imply that the only way to mitigate the problem of fake news (no need for scare quotes, we're talking about news that is fake here) is to hand over total control of the internet to some single entity. You have failed to make any case that every other action that could be taken to mitigate fake news would be insufficient. This is far from clear to me. I think there is a great deal that could be done to mitigate fake news aside from that. Note that I say mitigate because I do not think it would need to be eliminated entirely to be effectively made powerless. Further, it's an old propagandist trick to claim that people who disagree with you are "screaming", to make them seem less rational and thus wrong. The language you choose to use in this post undercuts your points. Show me the data that fake news didn't affect the election results in any way. The probability of some effect is much greater than the probability of no effect at all, given the complexity of the system and the obvious mechanism. I think the burden of proof is on you.