[chinese_donald]

Why only mention pro-Trump fake news? I know plenty of people spreading fake Propaganda about Trump based on hearsay and false information.

...including links and comments on HN. Maybe HN needs to filter out the fake stuff too?

[Terretta]

> "Why only mention pro-Trump fake news?"

Sounds like you didn't read the whole article, as it mentions anti-Trump fake news and then answers your question:

After the election, Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race. There are, of course, viral fake anti-Trump memes, but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left.

The Macedonian teenagers found this, too. They had experimented with left-leaning or pro-Bernie Sanders content, but gave up when they found it wasn’t as reliable a source of income as pro-Trump content. But even if Mr. Zuckerberg were right and fake news were equally popular on both sides, it would still be a profound problem.

[zigzigzag]

Reporters found? The same reporters that had it in the bag for Clinton all along?

[chinese_donald]

I read the article just fine. It's mentioned in a byline at the bottom of the article.

[ComteDeLaFere]

And is Google guilty as well? The story below is currently at the top of the World section of Google News -

Nuclear War Alert: US Prepares For North Korea Missile Launch

http://www.morningnewsusa.com/nuclear-war-alert-us-prepares-...

I have no idea what this "news" site is, but I'm pretty sure that the US is not currently rushing to prepare for a North Korean nuclear missile launch.

[Fej]

North Korea is thought to be gearing up for a missile test. Not a war.

[echlebek]

Care to cite some instances? I'm not sure why you would need to create propaganda about Trump. The truth is pretty damning already.

[solvedit]

I can help with that. I, like you, also thought that there would be no reason to, so why would they do it... But then I went and watched the actual Q&A recording that all of the "Trump wants to put all the Muslims into a database" claims came from and find that the claim is quite false. He never says it. He says something that when taken entirely out of context can be interpreted by someone with preconceived notions as meaning it, except that in context it is actually very clear that he's talking about something else. I don't like Trump, and I don't want him to be our President, but the amount of seemingly fabricated stories about him are upsetting.

[trevelyan]

The irony is that some of the NYT articles about Trump themselves constitute aggressive misinformation if not fake news. I'm thinking in particular about the hit piece they put out about his relationship with women.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/...

[wahern]

FWIW, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/...

Trump's statements are usually non-specific and often contradictory. He's made denials that go far beyond straining credulity.

Basically, I think it's fair to say that people aren't fabricating stories so much as grasping at straws. Much like his supporters.

The only real way to understand Trump is as a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Or maybe some surreal parody of NPD. Once you understand that his primary and in many cases sole motivation is self-aggrandizement and attention seeking[1], everything he says makes so much sense. Or rather, you stop searching for the earnest, substantive policies and opinions. He's alot like an adolescent in that regard--his opinions are based on an immature and highly self-referential worldview. Sometimes his points and counter-points seem well-grounded until you realize that he's literally parroting an argument he's read or heard elsewhere, without any serious attempt at critical assessment or application. The fact that they're all over the board (as opposed to consistently preferring a particular narrative) is only more evidence of this methodology. Again, it's basically the methodology of an adolescent.

You cannot identify anything concrete about Trump's policies, and you cannot predict what Trump will do, without understanding that. And once you do, you realize that you _still_ cannot identify or predict anything. You can't even predict whether he'll be a devastating president, become more popular than the second-coming of Christ, or fit somewhere in-between. I mean, by most definitions he's successful. That means something... I'm just not sure what.

The only thing you can say for certain is that people acting intelligently and honestly would never vote such a man into the Presidency. That he's President-elect is a devastating testament to a deep pathology in American politics and culture.

[1] I don't even mean to use those terms derisively. They just seem so apt and obvious and beyond dispute. And I'm not using them to imply he's good or bad or right or wrong. The only way to come close to understanding the man and his behavior is with an almost clinical detachment. A Trump presidency is like a natural, cosmic phenomenon. Even the word cataclysmic doesn't work because it implies some subjective value judgment. His eventual policy decisions can and will be judged. But the man himself and his words... there's nothing you can really say. Just like there's nothing you can really say when a small child surprises you with some facially sophisticated argument that he's just echoing. The statement and the thought process behind them are basically immune from meaningful criticism. Put another way, in some sense both the child and Trump lack capacity for the same kind or degree of culpability of a typical adult. Yes, normally selfishness is frowned upon; but if it's the product of an abnormal mind, there's no value judgment to be made.

[chinese_donald]

"The only thing you can say for certain is that people acting intelligently and honestly would never vote such a man into the Presidency. That he's President-elect is a devastating testament to a deep pathology in American politics and culture."

I feel the same way about Hillary: She defended a rapist husband, used the government as her personal piggy bank, used the mainstream media as her attack dog, and conspired against all of her enemies, and tried to steal the white house.

We also have PC culture run amok. Trump is a big 'Fuck You' many intelligent Americans have been waiting for, for many years. It has nothing to do with racism, sexism, or xenophobia.

The saddest thing? The fact that Wikileaks had to bring many of this to light. Julian Assange still hasn't been heard from since his power was cut at the embassy.

[refulgentis]

A vast majority of these claims are extraordinary and have no sourcing. Source on using government as her personal piggy bank?

[blusterXY]

The Clinton Foundation is known to have directly misappropriated government donations. Donors to the organization also seem to have received preferential treatment from the State Department:

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/wikileaks-chel...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/114379...

Other major conflicts of interest involved Russia and Haiti. If you need direct evidence of Hillary's involvement, focus on the 33k emails she deleted AFTER receiving a Congressional subpoena, emails that were originally sent from a private server expressly to avoid public disclosure FOIA requirements.

[Chris2048]

"and have no sourcing"

Where do authoritative sources come from? Government? Mainstream media?

I think "personal piggy bank" might refer to Clinton foundation donations and collusions, but don't expect it to be too easy to find that information, no time will be spend producing fancy interactive info-graphics to make that easier to understand...

[AndrewKemendo]

This one was pretty popular:

http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/

[chinese_donald]

During the election, there were countless stories nearly every day. Trump used all of the hyperbole and fake news articles about him to destroy the competition.

These articles were written by the left-leaning mainstream media and repeated ad nauseam over social media.

I see people that still believe that Trump is going to deport all of the 'Brown people'. There isn't one instance where he said this. The media created this fear through lies and propaganda and made Trump out to be a monster.

They are mostly to blame for all of the violence and protests we are seeing today.

But a Trump win still won't force them to tell us the truth. I'm just glad that the American people did.

[AndrewUnmuted]

> Why only mention pro-Trump fake news?

See Ms. Tufekci's previous hard-hitting, facts-be-damned op-ed contribution to the NYT, "WikiLeaks Isn't Whistleblowing" to get your answer.