I don't agree. I think the professor is just trying to teach people that you can't trust what you read to be true, and test the rigour by which fact-checking ac

I don't agree. I think the professor is just trying to teach people that you can't trust what you read to be true, and test the rigour by which fact-checking actually takes place on the internet (rarely). He's not trying to say 'truth isn't necessary' or anything of the sort. His cons are generally harmless, and he has revealed them so wheres the net loss? There is a long way between this and someone who actually subversively tries to push his views on others (eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxil_hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxil_hoax )