[dingo_bat]

Bullshit article. Not a single example of supposed "fake news" that these guys were supposed to have used to influence the election.

[beager]

Interestingly enough, your comment contains two strategies commonly used by witting or unwitting disseminators/consumers of disinformation to dispute inconsonant reporting:

1. Calling it "fake news" ("Bullshit article")

2. Introducing a straw man

[dingo_bat]

> 1. Calling it "fake news" ("Bullshit article")

Funny. That would apply on the article itself too.

> 2. Introducing a straw man

I'm not sure what's the strawman in my comment.

[FireBeyond]

Who said they were investigating that? There's one mention of the word election, and it asks a question.

So every other discussion point there is bullshit, because they don't prove that The_Donald was trying to influence the election?

[dingo_bat]

The title is "how the_donald influences the fake news ecosystem". Then they fail to provide any actual instance of that. Delete the word election from my comment (even though that was when this term was invented). And even then there is hardly one lame example of an image that the president retweeted, which was just a sort of conspiracy theory, not "fake news" that people thought was an actual news story.

It is a heavily loaded term. A rumor, or a nutjob conspiracy theory, or a trolling joke, all of these and more have been called "fake news". Is that what we're worried about now? I would say not. What I understand by fake news is a false story reported by a news channel or website or newspaper. For example, CNN reported on TV that "it is illegal to look at the wikileaks dump, except for us". This is fake news. I'd like for such articles to tackle this, not random trolling and conspiracy theories.