Found this in a subthread and thought it was too relevant to just stay there:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30551252" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30551252</a>
What makes falsehoses most effective is that non-falsehoses have credibility problems and interpretive biases in enough eyes that random crap posted all over the internet seems just as plausible. And a lot of readers as well as editors and journalists get squirmy about facts that challenge their world views, regardless of that view. (The squirms come out in different ways, but they do come out.)<p>Even just random sites that say “the wsj said…” or “the daily standard said…” or “CNN said” would get traction even if the outlet said no such thing. Our own politicians lie about the contents of bills. Can’t trust the person you voted for, or rely on them to lie against your opposition? Now who do you believe that you haven’t even met?<p>And humans (well, US citizens, anyway) seem wired to believe most of their sensory inputs, so unless they’ve intentionally trained to be skeptical and-or not internalize a fact and limit interpretation to “someone said X is true”, misinformation will have an effect.<p>Just adding noise helps drown signal.