And I would be among those mocking the idea, but that's because I think: 1. The supposed harms of particular lies are frequently overblown. 2. The outright li

And I would be among those mocking the idea, but that's because I think: 1. The supposed harms of particular lies are frequently overblown. 2. The outright lies that have the most potential to do damage to society are those that get peddled by the mainstream media and believed by huge swathes of society, but the conventional "fake news" narrative of progressives focuses instead on obscure dedicated fake news sites run by Russians. 3. The proposed cures for this supposed evil of "fake news" all involve giving large institutions the role of determining what is true and censoring all dissent. That is a recipe for a society whose beliefs are far more divorced from truth than the one we currently live in, not less. None of that is equivalent to the claim that literally no harm is ever done by lies in the news. I don't think anyone believes that, and I think you're badly misreading those of us who are contemptuous of the "fake news" narrative if that's the interpretation of our views you've walked away with.