[NeutronBoy]

I agree. You need to be able to differentiate between 'types' of fake news. It means different things to different people. Three perspectives I can think of at the top of my head, but it's a sliding scale:

1. Flatout lies with no factual basis (Hillary Clinton/Donald Trump is a lizard person from Mars)

2. Mis-truths of accepted facts, or mis-representation of statistics (climate change)

3. Opinions that you don't agree with (ACA is good/bad, or The Media is good/bad)

[sheepmullet]

We are already very good at detecting and routing around #1.

The problem is people use #2 and #3 to build up ideologies in the same way that advertisers build up brands.

Take for example the wage gap between genders.

There is a moderate wage gap (20-30%) if you look at unadjusted figures.

Fringe feminists try and use this stat to build a general sense of unease with their followers.

This primes the reader for a few anecdotes of women being unfairly passed over for promotion and the reader walks away thinking there is a widespread issue of women being treated poorly in the workplace.

White nationalists do the same thing. It is a fact that African Americans make up a disproportionate amount of murderers by race.

White nationalists will then use a few anecdotes of African Americans killing innocent white families and the reader walks away with a negative impression of African Americans.

And now see what I've just done with my comment: I've linked white nationalists and feminists.

By placing these two examples together I am connecting them for the reader and subtly discrediting these feminists.