it comes from the mainstream media ... they are the biggest purveyors of fake news ...

Odd that the author would exclude one of the most significant factors leading to this "fake news" phenomenon...the selective, slanted reporting of the mainstream media. This culminated in Rather-gate, an incident receiving not even a mention by this author. It's almost as if the author is trying to slant the story towards a specific, political, conclusion. No...that's not possible...surely...
rip

As the wife of an ambassador, my friend Phyllis Hopkinson was at a half-dozen events in the 50s and 60s that were reported in Time magazine. On each occasion, she had to check the time and place to confirm that she had seen the original event. The difference now is the variety of "news" available. People also have shorter attention spans, fewer thinking skills, and more tendency to live in an information bubble. As usual, the biggest liars use this to skim taxes, not just ad revenue.

The "giant internet companies" are taking the wrong approach (so far). They should, of themselves, identify fake news. That will be characterized as censorship and it will fail. The right approach is to provide means for their users to rate the purveyors of news. The resulting reputation of the source should be shown right beside each link. That won't "eliminate" the problem (nothing can), but it will make fake news unprofitable -- that's all we need.

Not only do the mainstreams control with "fake news" but also with news they choose not to publish. If it doesn't fit their narrative it won't be published.

I don't think the internet had as much to do with fake news as the major news services bought up by just a few wealthy individuals that have political and global agendas. Interestingly, all this was written about thousands of years ago in the prophesies about the "Last days" and "Globalism" when people would declare that right was wrong and wrong was right. The deception would become so strong that if possible even the elect (Gods people) would be deceived. Books like "1984" are thought provoking but not even close to the accuracy of the "Last Days" prophesies. Think what you want but this is about the battle between good and evil.

This may somewhat redundant, but as I recall yellow journalism although not illegal left openings for libel suits and was considered unethical. This was frowned upon by the great journalists of the 20th century. Here is the definition for those who do not know below. I also have to ask why we put up with it. When will we start to demand the truth again. When will someone have the nerve to not only report the truth but publish the facts to back those statements up no matter what the risk is... LEGAL HELP Yellow Journalism Law and Legal Definition: Yellow journalism is the type of journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates news to create sensations and attract readers. This method of journalism is used to increase circulation. However, news provided in yellow circulations is not given high news value by authorities. It is mostly considered as inflammatory and irresponsible reporting. Newspapers that practice yellow journalism are called yellow press. Now a days, yellow journalism is considered as an unprofessional or unethical practice.

Since the suppose a day's of Adam and Eve there has been fake news.

An ironic story, given the click-bait ads for miracle anti-fatigue nostrums immediately below.

I don't want tech or any other companies censoring or ruling on any news. Readers need to take responsibility for verifying anything they read. That is what the First Amendment and a free press actually means. I am against censorship in any form and from any organization private or governmental.