Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Prove That Truth is No Match For Fiction on Twitter (theguardian.com)
Researchers find fake news reaches users up to 20 times faster than factual content -- and real users are more likely to spread it than bots. From a report: "Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it," wrote Jonathan Swift in 1710. Now a group of scientists say they have found evidence Swift was right -- at least when it comes to Twitter. In the paper, published in the journal Science, three MIT researchers describe an analysis of a vast amount of Twitter data: more than 125,000 stories, tweeted more than 4.5 million times in total, all categorised as being true or false by at least one of six independent fact-checking organisations. The findings make for unhappy reading. "Falsehood diffused significantly farther, faster, deeper and more broadly than the truth in all categories of information," they write, "and the effects were more pronounced for false political news than for false news about terrorism, natural disasters, science, urban legends or financial information."
How much further? "Whereas the truth rarely diffused to more than 1,000 people, the top 1% of false-news cascades routinely diffused to between 1,000 and 100,000 people," they write. In other words, true facts don't get retweeted, while too-good-to-be-true claims are viral gold. How much faster? "It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1,500 people, and 20 times as long as falsehood to reach a cascade depth of 10" -- meaning that it was retweeted 10 times sequentially (so, for example, B reads A's feed and retweets a tweet, and C then reads B's feed and retweets the same tweet, all the way to J).
How much further? "Whereas the truth rarely diffused to more than 1,000 people, the top 1% of false-news cascades routinely diffused to between 1,000 and 100,000 people," they write. In other words, true facts don't get retweeted, while too-good-to-be-true claims are viral gold. How much faster? "It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1,500 people, and 20 times as long as falsehood to reach a cascade depth of 10" -- meaning that it was retweeted 10 times sequentially (so, for example, B reads A's feed and retweets a tweet, and C then reads B's feed and retweets the same tweet, all the way to J).
Not that the real journalism is readily available these days but sites such as Twitter are not in the running. Those wishing to be informed have choices but have to know the intent of the content provider. All need revenue, some have agendas. Choose wisely.
Occasionally there are major policy announcements that hit Twitter first. That's news.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
Attributed, in various forms, to many (including Churchill, erroneously) but there is no clear indication of who the original author is.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/...
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
... which is truth and which is "fake news"?
People have been arguing that issue for thousands of years.
Putting religion aside for a moment, we generally use these things called "facts" to discern truth from bullshit. Not sure why you feel we're still validating how we do this thousands of years later. We still use the word "liar" too, which also has a pretty clear definition.
snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, truthorfiction.com, hoax-slayer.com, and urbanlegends.about.com
Wrong question.
"What kind of a retard posts news from Twitter?"
If you have a nation full of retards . . . maybe Twitter is the best choice to reach them . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on."
There is real truth to the saying "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on".
Falsehoods have always spread much faster than the truth, it's just in the hyper connected world we live in, instead of taking a day to spread through the world (slightly longer before the age of electronic communications like telephone and telegraph), it takes just milliseconds.
We sampled all rumor cascades investigated by six independent fact-checking organizations (snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, truthorfiction.com, hoax-slayer.com, and urbanlegends.about.com) by parsing the title, body, and verdict (true, false, or mixed) of each rumor investigation reported on their websites and automatically collecting the cascades corresponding to those rumors on Twitter.
Real life is just simply boring. Spice it up a bit with some trendy lies and see what sticks.
...why did they publish their paper on Tweeter ?
You can lie with facts.
What's lost in all this is the difference between objective truth and subjective truth. All of these arguments seem to be debating differing subjective truths and extremists on both sides believe that their own subjective truths are absolute. Unfortunately one of those sides is massively over-represented in the media and control of online censorship.
If you use anyone as a "fact checker" you are probably hopelessly naive.
So, the only things you know as a fact are things that you have personally proven? Even then, how do you know your facts are facts and not something else that happened by coincidence?
Otherwise, everything you know is sourced from a fact-checker that has validated the data as factual.
News is something that's fresh, has relevance AND IS TRUE.
Statements released 5 minutes ago and unchecked, are not news. They're just statements until proven true, and only then they become news.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
The more it's believed.
Statements released 5 minutes ago and unchecked, are not news.
'X' might not be true, but "DJT said 'X" might be news in itself.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
So, the only things you know as a fact are things that you have personally proven?
You don't? If I am interested in a topic I spend more time and energy to discern the truth from varying sources to come to some conclusion about the topic. If I am not interested then I look at who is saying it and consider what they gain from any specific fact.
Every fact checker has their bias and opinions that is bled into their analysis. Only a fool would listen and believe any source that claims to be objective and bias free or most trusted.
Snopes is very biased, not sure about the others.
The so called fact checkers are just the regurgitation of the party line, the government propaganda, the mainstream globalist spin.
Put all the news out there, let the people decide. I don't want some government or mega-corp becoming the gate keeper or arbiter of truth.
"Never believe anything until it is officially denied"
The main stream media has been caught lying so many times, supporting the government lies), they have lost credibility. Remember the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Why was WTC building 7 the only modern steel frame building to collapse in history?
You can lie with facts.
Yes, and you can also multiply the largest number in the world by zero, and get a similar value.
Facts + bullshit = bullshit. It's that simple, if you want truth to survive and thrive.
we generally use these things called "facts" to discern truth from bullshit.
I see you are still in elementary school. Your entire perspective is based on a lie of trustworthyness.
In reality, we use observations to assess and document the causality we are aware of. In retrospect, some of those observations will be labelled as "fact" and others will be discarded as misunderstandings. Many facts of the past have been discarded when analyzed with more detail or new contradicting observations.
The above is true for hard sciences, social sciences, and history (many "facts" of archaeology have been found false with the discovery of more old texts and ruins). Theoretical mathematics only cares about consistency, lingual fields care primarily about communication, and artistic fields consider everything malleable for the sake of art.
Now, on to the summary:
"Whereas the truth rarely diffused to more than 1,000 people, the top 1% of false-news cascades routinely diffused to between 1,000 and 100,000 people,"
Without providing a numerical definition of "rarely", this looks like they are reporting the exact same rate of effect. 1% is pretty rare, and "between 1,000 and 100,000" is actually a more restricted range than "more than 1,000."
Aside from straight to lies, "alternative facts" are a huge problem. Things that are kinda true but which are misleading or deliberately omit important caveats.
Statistics are often abused as alternative facts, because you can work the numbers to say pretty much anything you like.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...
#pizzagate
That's not what you said though. You said:
"If you use anyone as a "fact checker" you are probably hopelessly naive."
Now you're giving qualifications to that statement that weren't present the first time.
Of course you'll have some topics that are of personal interest to you. But, your statement was a de facto if you listen to any fact checker you're probably naive. Which is why I said what I said. It's relevant to your first statement, which was a reduction statement. One person cannot possibly know all facts, so there are plenty of times you simply have to accept what other people say as facts, are indeed facts.
Don't confuse, "get their news" with making it the news.
How many times have you read, "Twitter erupts!" followed by a "story" comprised mostly of Twitter idiots?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I find it deeply ironic the the hive of SJW and villainy that are FB and Twitter single-highhandedly created right-wing ideological fever swamps.
Before social media, it was mostly contained to a bunch of old senile people protesting with "Keep government hands off my medicare". Today, these cooks have a POTUS and SJWs gave them tools to do it.
Hahahaha.
So, the only things you know as a fact are things that you have personally proven?
You don't?
No, I don't. For example, it's a fact that the average standard atomic weight of Oxygen on Earth is 15.999. It's a fact and no I haven't verified it personally.
It's also a fact that stratospheric clouds are made of water. I mean I can tell that with mist, sure, but I've never actually managed to get up into a cloud myself and personally verify it is true.
It's basically facile to claim that things you haven't personally verified are facts is true.
If I am not interested then I look at who is saying it and consider what they gain from any specific fact.
That's also an inane point of view. There's plenty of other (better) smell tests, like does it violate the lwas of physics. It is obviously contrary to very easily obtainable data. Does it sound too good to be true.
The trouble wiht seeing if the person has something to gain is that (a) just because they are doesn't me they're wrong and (b) they could very well simply be deluded even if they have nothing to gain.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
... while the Truth looks for its sandals.
Aside from straight to lies, "alternative facts" are a huge problem. Things that are kinda true but which are misleading or deliberately omit important caveats.
Agreed. That is a growing problem. That said, I see "fake news" on a different level that lends itself more towards the liar-liar end of the bullshit spectrum.
Statistics are often abused as alternative facts, because you can work the numbers to say pretty much anything you like.
Absolutely agree with you here. Statistics is a form of data manipulation. More often than not, they are used to prove one's agenda and not much else. Personally I see the need for more regulation around the use of statistics because of the manipulative power they hold.
That's probably why you shouldn't rely on any one fact checker either. If you've got half a dozen different fact checkers and they all agree on something, you can probably trust it, especially if you are relying on fact checkers with opposing biases. For example, if you read an article on all of Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Brietbart, and the Huffington Post, the subset of details that are reported on by all of those sites are the ones that are almost certain to be true even though each of them might individually be trying to spin the story in a particular direction.
That in itself isn't a fool proof method, but it's likely to yield better results on average than using a single source or having to witness everything for yourself first hand before being willing to accept it. I don't recall ever being to West Virginia, but that shouldn't prohibit me from believing that it's a real place or distrusting a "fact checker" who tells me that it's real.
Hold the phone. You responded to Archtech ( 159117 ) and I responded to you. I did not say "If you use anyone as a "fact checker" you are probably hopelessly naive." Although, I do agree with it because I did say "Every fact checker has their bias and opinions that is bled into their analysis. Only a fool would listen and believe any source that claims to be objective and bias free or most trusted." That includes self described "fact checkers".
Facts are information which can be objectively evaluated, i. e. , everyone can in principle test them. Fake news are fiction, they are subjective and can either be based on lack of information, wishful thinking, or deliberate lies.
For example, steel tariffs have been issued by Trump is a fact. If they have a positive or negative impact on jobs in the US is speculation. While there are some interpretation which are more likely than others they are not fact but the interpretations + probabilities are.
It's just a sort of natural selection. The fake news which appeals to people's prejudices and desires is more appealing, and thus more likely to get forwarded. I'll bet there is tons of fake stuff which dies on the vine. Also, a lot of fake news is designed to specifically have that appeal, hence the term "clickbait." Meanwhile the truth is often quite prosaic, and doesn't often have that "zing" quality of proving us right all along.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Scientists observe. Mathematicians prove.
Ah, yep.. You're right.. That will serve me trying to /. while listening to someone drone on in my ear about some project they want me to be a part of even though the project has 0 need of any of my skillsets and the only reason I'm being asked is so someone else won't have to do the work...
my bad
And most people hate poetry.
--The Big Short
Have gnu, will travel.
Snopes may be biased, but does that mean they are inaccurate?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
No, I don't. For example, it's a fact that the average standard atomic weight of Oxygen on Earth is 15.999. It's a fact and no I haven't verified it personally.
Isn't the basis of science that you can personally verify any claim? I am sure that many scientists that do care enough about atomic weights have gone through to personally corroborate that fact. I personally, and I assume you as well, don't care enough to spend that time and energy to verify it. The real question is are you willing to spend the time and energy to personally verify it? And to another point, do you care enough or does that fact impact your life to such an extent that the validity of that fact can negatively affect your life? What authority are you willing to delegate to whom and on what conditions for trusting specific sources? When it comes to affecting your life I bet that you delegate that authority and trust very narrowly compared to delegating scientific authority and trust.
That's also an inane point of view. There's plenty of other (better) smell tests, like does it violate the lwas of physics. It is obviously contrary to very easily obtainable data. Does it sound too good to be true.
Politics and specifically narrative is never as simple as physics. Because by their very nature deal with topics that you and I will not be informed to make any kind of decision yet we must have an opinion because democracy. The scientists that study clouds and atomic weights are the experts about those specific things and those facts require experts to verify and understand them.
Everything is easily obtained data if you spend time yet it is still contested. Did Trump call Mexicans rapists in his announcement speech? Who are you going to trust when have conflicting narratives? If you were a Mexican immigrant (legal), and you heard conflicting stories from CNN and Fox, who would you trust? Be afraid and vote to protect yourself just in case or nothing new continue on with life and nonchalant politics? That is very different than what the weather is. Even if it is factually inaccurate acting as if it was is still the rational choice.
... which is truth and which is "fake news"?
People have been arguing that issue for thousands of years.
Not really, no. The only people arguing the issue are people who want to be able to easily dismiss any events, statements, or facts that are in any way negative or damaging to them.
The Huffington Post is (generally) not "fake news", it's merely biased reporting combined with opinion. The Onion is "fake news".
When a source states that the atomic weight of Oxygen on Earth is reported at 15.999 one day and then 14.999 the next and maybe 15.5 the next because of an "anonymous scientist" said so, you begin to understand the problem people have with news organizations today.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'm astounded.
What bias and what source would that be?
I know I am biased. What is your point?
The idea that every fact checker has an axe to grind is in itself a bias.
or it's the basis of skepticism.
I am not looking for a source to say "Yep I knew it! I was right all along". I am looking at different sources to see what is different and what overlaps between the different sources.
Part of the issue is that many fact checkers and news orgs are not transparent about their biases and they claim to be objective truth tellers.
People more attracted to Man Bites Dog stories.
More at 7
No beer and no TV make Homer something something
When I talk to folks about the fake news they get why they enjoy it and read it, I'm told by them, that every story is based on a little truth. They think that they still get the base story, while being amused at how they are reading the news. Over years when this is all one ingests, it breads cynical distaste in life. Normal articles are long and boring, talking to different people face to face is out, and you can now see the truth, which really is that there is a conspiracy in everything. For the most part, they believe that they have thought it through.
--
People are people so why should it be -- Depeche Mode
Isn't the basis of science that you can personally verify any claim?
No, not even slightly. The basis is that the claims are in principle falsifiable, not that you can personally verify them.
I'm never going to be able to verify the claims of hogh energy physics because my maths isn't good enough to understand the claims in the first place and I can't afford and don't have the skills to build a particle accelerator.
Nonetheless, the existence of quarks is a fact.
I am sure that many scientists that do care enough about atomic weights have gone through to personally corroborate that fact. I personally, and I assume you as well, don't care enough to spend that time and energy to verify it.
Many, especially these days? I doubt it. Scientists have science to do; verifying well established facts which can easily be looked up (e.g. atomic weights) is just a waste of time.
And to another point, do you care enough or does that fact impact your life to such an extent that the validity of that fact can negatively affect your life?
The first, second and third laws of thermodynamics affect my life every day in a negative way. Can't win, can't break even and can't get out of the game. I've not actually tried building perpetual motion machines just to see.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
fake news reaches users up to 20 times faster than factual content
So how far will this story get?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
.. are mostly idiots in the first place. Twitter is the hall-of-mirrors of echo chambers - lots of twisty little tweets, all the same.
Organization? You must be joking..
This tells me more about to readers than it does about the platform where the content is published.
In the post-truth modern era everyone who contradicts your preferred reality is a liar. Everyone else is biased and can safely be dismissed. Only you are objective, the only human able to build a clear and true picture of the world. This grants you moral authority and intellectual superiority.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
While wild conspiracy theories, lies and misinformation, it can be flashy and click-baity. Lies exploit our human nature to find outrageous claims to be fascinating.
The more outlandish the lie is, the more interesting it is. Truth is truth, and often it's just dull and boring. It's a lot harder to make truth flashy and bold.
The issue is that invariably you are delegating responsibility on others and not proving facts. Instead, you're leaning on trust for truth. You parrot things as facts when you verify nothing of the kind. Ie, you prove the researchers points because you really aren't going out of your way to prove things except in limited instances.
The issue here is that you simply don't have the time and the ability to prove much for yourself. Your time on Earth is limited, and so are your abiilities. You can't verify the mass of the Higgs boson to be 126 GeV, because you don't have the money and the time and the craftmanship to build an LHC for yourself. So you have to take CERN's word for it.
All the talk about "verifying for yourself" is nice and tandy, but totally ignorant of the reality. The reality is that there are so many things you take for granted without every doubting them, and you are not even aware of them. Most information you get is the result of a large collective effort of hundreds and thousands of people working together and building on each other's results. You as a single person have no chance to even replicate a minuscle part of that effort.
I remember that in the late 1990ies, there was a project of an artist to build a simple toaster all on his own, without using any other's product: Going out and mine the iron ore and the copper, melt them in selfbuilt ovens, using self burned charcoal, welding them with selfmade tools into sheets and wires etc.pp.. As far as I remember, after ten years, he wasn't even halfway into any results. It's the same with the information you get. You don't have 10 years time to hunt down all the facts that lead to that information. You have to rely on others to provide you with facts you will never have any chance to check for yourself.
So all that talk about "not trusting anyone and trying to verify all on your own" is just grand-standing. You simply don't do that. You take 99.9% of all information you get for granted. And you make a few steps of verification of some of the 0.1% remaining ones, but you virtually never follow through, especially not if your first steps seem to suggest the veracity of the information you were trying to verify.
Did you ever verify the timetable at a bus stop? Were you waiting for 24 h each on a work day and on a public holiday making notes of the bus coming? No. You just install an app that tells you when the next bus will arrive, and if that information seem to be ok within +/- 2 mins, you take the timetable for granted.
Off the top of my head - if each Twitter user had a "reliability" reputation associated with their account that decreased on false retweeting and increased with "true" retweeting, and their ability to tweet frequency-limited by that reputation score, would that put a check to this problem?
Just another good reason I'm glad I haven't signed up for a Twitter account (or Facebook either).
A difference without a distinction. If you make a claim that is falsifiable I can verify it. Falsifiability necessitates others to verify results. Science is not built on trust.
because you don't have the money and the time and the craftmanship to build an LHC for yourself. So you have to take CERN's word for it. All the talk about "verifying for yourself" is nice and tandy, but totally ignorant of the reality.
A lack of means and motive does not prove CERN right. I would suspect that most people are indifferent to the discoveries made by the LHC. The point of science is that experiments can be repeated and claims can be verified. Yes, functionally you put a lot of trust in the accumulated knowledge we have. That is fine for things like the Higgs Boson but not so great for politics. If some billionaire really wanted to he could build an equivalent accelerator to try and disprove CERN which is a fundamental part of the scientific method.
I remember that in the late 1990ies, there was a project of an artist to build a simple toaster all on his own, without using any other's product: Going out and mine the iron ore and the copper, melt them in selfbuilt ovens, using self burned charcoal, welding them with selfmade tools into sheets and wires etc.pp.. As far as I remember, after ten years, he wasn't even halfway into any results. It's the same with the information you get. You don't have 10 years time to hunt down all the facts that lead to that information. You have to rely on others to provide you with facts you will never have any chance to check for yourself.
That sort of reminds me of Gingery's Book Series where he tells how to build a complete machine shop from scrap metal. All the way from the foundry to make the castings to a complete finished set of machine tools (lathe, etc.)
Bootstrap projects like that rock, even if not that many of us actually complete the thing. The journalist toaster thing sounds like a liberal arts dude fumbling around, tho.
I think by using the internet since it's infancy (and understanding the technical realities of it), most of us have the benefit of already being very wary of anything read on the internet.
What *is* new is that it's true you can't trust "facts" presented by major media corporations anymore, if you ever could. One's only reasonable course for determining what is closest to the truth is to read the same story from multiple sources and opinions, and be as objective as you can in weighing the credibility of each source. Unfortunately this takes work, and reading opinions/sites you typically don't agree with, neither of which people are too keen to do.
I usually surprise people with key information on current events they didn't know, and these are smart people, they simply don't read as much news or opinions on a subject as I do. I guess the truth is whoever has first mover advantage on information and can craft facebook headlines to convey their opinion.
The worst part is reading many sources, opinions, and analysis is that it has turned me into a Trump supporter. But this is based on my careful analysis and (as much as possible) objective view of the decisions he makes...this has turned me into somewhat of a political pariah among the majority of my friends who typically only read Trump-rage headlines, or as noted above, only the first story from CNN.
Journalist, have become lazy...instead of investigating stories before they blast them out, they just copy/paste if it fits their personal, or corporate interest. Twitter is why the USA was founded as a Constitutional republic, and not a democracy. A pure democracy is emotionally driven, whereas a Constitutional republic, allows for conscience thought before making a decision. Just look at the whole hands up don't shoot garbage. Twitter blasts out that a police officer shot a kid several times WHILE he was RUNNING AWAY with his hands up, and it spread like wildfire. After the TRUTH came along, that we found out not only was this young adult not running away, he was running TOWARDS the officer, after he had previously assaulted the officer, and, tried to remove his service weapon, after he previously assaulted a business owner. But, still today, there are many who believe the twitter version, even though it was false. Twitter, is for TWITS.
"Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense." Mark Twain
Here's a snap back to reality in this argument. Are the reading that fake news because it is fun or because they believe it to be true. How many people believe the fake news, what ever the source not because they actually really believe it but simply because they want to believe it. Is it actually convincing all that many about anything what so ever, except of one thing, they are not alone in their beliefs, which is what corporate main stream media used, 'USED' to be able to do, simple can't do it any more, because people can watch other stuff instead and they do.
The time is getting close for the news model, still not there though and corporate main stream media will fight the new model fang and claw, the lying animals that they are. The time will come when the new model is accepted but it is not yet.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Depending on your work that point may be earlier or later than most but you WILL accept stuff. Be it what is in history book , social facts, math, physic, what a reporter is telling happens the other side of the world, or what the doctor tells you, some stuff you WILL accepet as fact either what expert tell you or plain where you are not located. Now truth to be told there is gradation, e.g. if you tell me alien landed i will request far more evidence than if you told me there is a bushfire in australia during the summer. But you cannot simply fact check everything. At some point trust will apply. The point you apply that trust is open. One rule of thumb for me is to not forward anything i did not fact check, but then again i read a LOT of article on sciences, economy so i am an outlier.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
the top 1% of false news cascades diffused to between 1000 and 100,000 people
Actual people or Internet Research Agency bots? I believe the Russians have got this deception propagation and contention augmentation stuff down cold .
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
There are earlier instances see Quote Investigator
Anyone who utters the phrase "fake news" instantly loses all credibility to me. If you can't explain what's wrong with it, then there's about a 95% chance you're full of shit.
Tell me what they did wrong, and I'll listen. Loosened the bounds of what's significant? Threw out too many outliers? Let participants self-select with no controls? Sure. That's bullshit.
"FAKE NEWS!!!", "I know you are but what am I?", and "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" are not productive ways to communicate.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
https://archive.org/details/Ho...
DPRK News Service is the only REAL news!
https://twitter.com/DPRK_News
Shhhhhhhh! People are sleeping, you might wake them.
The Fifty Cent Army is out in force tonight. All these lame quotes about lies spreading faster than truth, from rarely seen accounts with shitty usernames.
Ivan, Comrade Wang, Agent Smith, or minions of the NGO - who knows. But shit man, it's so lame it's almost cool.
Actually,yes we can know
Like when Faux KNOWINGLY spreads the lie about Scripted Interview 4 hours after CNN gave Faux the facts
Add in the WMD lies, the Obama conspiracy lies, etc, we DO know that Faux is far more often the purveyor of fake news compared to CNN
I'm not going to sleep because someone is wrong on the Internet.