Volume, I doubt it. Every small town Fudd I ever met had an AOL account. The difference is that all this activity is now visible to the liberal intelligentsia.
"The difference is that all this activity is now visible to the liberal intelligentsia."
I do think that's a big part of it. However, there is some aura of authenticity that comes from social media postings that link to official looking sites. Not for people that are somewhat internet savvy, but there is a group that's being somewhat fooled in way they weren't in the past.
I've seen a huge amount of complete and utter bullshit spread on social media by people who are both internet-savvy and media-savvy - indeed, even by journalists from mainstream online publications - despite not having the supposed aura of authenticity provided by a link. Indeed, I reckon that in some circles an obviously fake link harms the credibility of a claim compared to no source at all or even to one that contradicts the claim.
> Every small town Fudd I ever met had an AOL account
having grown up in small towns, no fudd i knew had a computer, much less an aol account. (and this was in the era of aol discs clogging the mail system.)
> To your second point, that's just nonsense.
"fake news" is censorship through displacement and delegitimization.
censorship is "fake news" by virtue of providing incomplete or distorted information (eg, lies of omission).
volume, perhaps.
> Do you support fake news or do you support the construction of a censorship apparatus?
in one sense, there isn't really any difference.