Timing matters when correcting fake news

Sometimes such sources turned out not to be anyone of significance. In other cases, they turned out to be instances of hearsay, or even outdated and irrelevant to the context.

It is shocking that a community such as Hacker News can assert demand for all manner of sources in the scientific and technical fields, but when it comes to news, they are more than willing to accept articles in which anonymous, unverifiable sources dominate.

One could argue that they defer their trust to the integrity of the news source. And to a point, this is reasonable. But it is also reasonable to draw attention to its potential for abuse, especially in "technically true" but "functionally dishonest" ways.

I just think that's hard for some people to acknowledge this potential point of failure/abuse.

But as a centrist, I want to be one to affirm that your statement has been demonstrably true in many (but not all) instances over the last many months and years. (And as a general trend throughout history.)

Those who have power in a given domain tend to—at least eventually—wield their power in an unbalanced way. This criticism does not legitimize actual fake news, but does acknowledge that such tools to limit fake news can—and often are—used to also limit undesirable opposition speech.

Case in point: Facebook, which tends to favor right-leaning speech, recently banned (and then revoked said ban) of several socialist groups on their platform. While they cite technical reasons, it is feasible that it was a human decision among those in power who wished to limit "opposition" speech. Of course, it could have legitimately been a bug, but it's certainly not believed so by those affected.