Was that really the consensus? I got the impression it was the opposite. "Fake news" can be used as an excuse to censor certain stories or publications. The pr

Was that really the consensus? I got the impression it was the opposite. "Fake news" can be used as an excuse to censor certain stories or publications. The problem was created in the first place by Facebook deciding which stories to rank higher, instead of giving people the stories and posts in chronological order. But it did that very poorly and in a way that could be easily manipulated. Now they're trying to "fix" that by exerting even more control over the stories - in other words, doubling down on the thing that hasn't worked. The article already makes me worried about their plans. I've seen some stories recently say that many Trump supporters, for instance, have a tendency to "trust" fake news sources. So according to Facebook's plans, those fake news sources may actually become "trusted" on the platform now, because many people trust them. Alternatively, just like YouTube, Facebook may "curate" the landscape so much, that only "non-offensive" stories will ever be shown on the platform.