I think that is probably a misunderstanding of what an echo chamber is. Lies and fantasies are not alternative viewpoints, and there is no reason that such thi

I think that is probably a misunderstanding of what an echo chamber is. Lies and fantasies are not alternative viewpoints, and there is no reason that such things would or should challenge your existing viewpoints or conceptions about the world. Blocking those things is just avoiding having your time wasted or your mind rotted from the inside out. Likewise, why not spend 50% of your time on jihadist websites? Support groups for wife-beaters, or unmedicated paranoid delusional schizophrenics for discussion of psychotic fantasies? If I say the spectrum is fox news on the left, and ISIS on the right, do you need to now spend 50% of your reading time on ideas that you might find disturbing, appalling, or psychologically destabilising? Are you failing to challenge your worldview if you haven't fully considered all the valid points that ISIS makes? I think people should be free to make their own choices about how much they want to be exposed to appalling or even mildly troubling viewpoints. That said, the only domains I recognised in the "fakenews" category were indistinguishable from "news". All adults presumably know already that "news" is a category which contains a mix of lies, fantasy, conventional wisdoms, bootlicking for domestic ruling classes, factual information, and in some very rare cases, a smattering of worthwhile journalism. So it is a category of information sources which, by definition, require a large effort to extract any reliable information from. The fact that the inclusion criteria for "fakenews" might not be to your satisfaction is entirely to be expected since the meaning of "fakenews" is "news that I don't like", so any "fake news" category necessarily encodes the preferences of the author which may differ from your own preferences.