[excalibur]

This is not "fake news" at all. This is the same factual event covered with a different spin. Use of the term "fake news" to describe reporting that is merely slanted in a direction you don't like--rather than presenting demonstrably false information as fact--is completely unwarranted, and is doing terrible damage to our social institutions.

[izacus]

This is a TEXTBOOK case of fake news - a newspaper owned by Google competitor spinning purchase of space on encrypted Cloud Storage and Google Apps productivity suite as a big medical data mining attempt by Google to drive a political agenda.

There are obvious concerns around data security here, but the article is very heavily distorting facts to drive outrage.

[mattkevan]

Also the Guardian isn’t owned by a Google competitor - it’s owned by the Scott Trust, an organisation set up specifically to maintain the paper’s editorial independence.

They have viewpoints which include a distrust of very powerful global corporations, and one you may or may not agree with - but it’s nowhere near ‘fake news’.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited

[excalibur]

No, it really isn't. The Guardian article is factually reporting on what the "whistleblower" told them, both via the video and in a separate interview. They did not fabricate any details, or make any claims they knew to be false. They made a cursory attempt to present the other side of the story. Sensationalized, yes. Slanted, yes. But not fake.

[chooseaname]

Thank you for stating this so aptly and concisely. People are throwing "fake news" around for anything and everything they don't agree with. It really is making it difficult to have a reasoned discussion with people when they just dismiss something so generally.