I think the key point here is that nobody knows precisely what fake news is, so we all create our own often times incompatible definitions. This probably goes b

I think the key point here is that nobody knows precisely what fake news is, so we all create our own often times incompatible definitions. This probably goes back to the source of the word. The terms usage seems to have been organized by mainstream media outlets to attack smaller sites. If that sounds controversial check out the trends on the term [1]. It was a basically nonexistent term, in spite of what it means having been a thing for many years, which then spiked to ubiquity everywhere in a matter of days. That reeks of collusion. And so does it's demise. The term backfired and began to be used against mainstream sites when they ran articles that were 'factually challenged'. And though 'fake news' has hardly faded, now that the big players have almost entirely stopped using the term - as quickly as they had chosen to start using it in the first place, it's trending back to 0. You even now have articles such as CNN suggesting we "ban the term 'fake news'" [2], a WaPo columnist suggesting, "It’s time to retire the tainted term 'fake news.'", and so on. [3]. The moral of the story being just yet another telling of Frankenstein. 'Fake news' as a term probably did well in focus tests, but once the term was used in the wild it took on a life of its own leading those that created it to desire nothing other than its extermination. [1] - https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=fake%20news https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=f... [2] - https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/26/opinions/fake-news-and-disinformation-opinion-wardle-derakhshan/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/26/opinions/fake-news-and-di... [3] - https://www.wired.com/2017/02/internet-made-fake-news-thing-made-nothing/ https://www.wired.com/2017/02/internet-made-fake-news-thing-...