Take a look at his comment history, that is Thom's MO. Trump being elected due to misinformation triggers the crap out of him for some reason.

What about making the case that it did happen because of misinformation instead of focusing on my comment history?

I have said a lot of things on both sides and is hardly just some troll. We all have our triggers, this is one for me so whats wrong with that?

I know this is bleeding over from our previous conversation, but the only case I have made wrt this topic is my opinion that it would be nice if critical thinking was more of a cultural force than it currently is. I would play your game and try to make the case that you want me to make, but I am not sure what data I would be able to source for that even if I suspect it to be true. Nothing wrong with having triggers, I was just using "alt-right" rhetoric to tease you a little bit.

There is no such case to be made. If viral fake news influence even some tiny percentage, there is already responsibility on social media for how this elections turned out. Yes, quite possibly >90% of the people would have voted the same way regardless of news, still we all know the "swing" makes all the difference

If only 45% voted for Trump, they wouldn't have valid opinions? If 5% made the difference, then 90% of the votes for Trump don't form a mandate?

There's a problem here - first past the post voting - but there's also another problem: denial of the legitimacy of an opposition. The vast majority of the people who voted for Trump have valid opinions. You can't just dismiss them.

Definitely a valid government regardless of what influenced it. Attributing cause to vote swing does not take legitimacy away, it's just being honest

Because you arguing that rampant misinformation is not a threat to a well functioning democracy is so manifestly nihilistic and trollish there's really no point in even discussing it further.

There's a lot of people in denial that there is a genuine grievance at the heart of voting for Trump.

People who voted for him are not all misinformed racist sexist delusional hicks. There's too many of them to all be fooled. Many of them voted for Obama last time; the numbers make that clear.

Denial is the biggest thing I see in the US media right now, and it's worrying. Because it will probably lead to opposition to the symptom (Trump), rather than the cause (what motivated people to vote for him), and will promote internal opposition. It brings heat, not light.

How well do you think the average voter, whether Trump or Hillary supporter, would do on a Politifact quiz?

I believe most of us are misinformed and delusional, and I do not believe people having Facebook as their primary news source is improving the situation.

People vote with their hearts not their heads. This has always been true.

Thats your argument?

Looks like they just needed to vent a bit.

Here is an examples which illustrates it perfectly well:

"After the election, Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race. That’s wrong. There are, of course, viral fake anti-Trump memes, but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left."

This

>> but reporters have found that the spread of false news is far more common on the right than it is on the left."

does not make this

>> Mr. Zuckerberg claimed that the fake news was a problem on “both sides” of the race

incorrect.

One side does not get a pass because it was the lesser problem.

But we aren't talking about that.

We are talking about whether it effects election which is what the article claims he is in denial about.

"Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief, believes that it is “a pretty crazy idea” that “fake news on Facebook, which is a very small amount of content, influenced the election in any way.” In holding fast to the claim that his company has little effect on how people make up their minds, Mr. Zuckerberg is doing real damage to American democracy — and to the world."

The fact is that Facebook is not a media company. In some countries (e.g. most of Europe) where this distinction makes tremendous differences (the media being much more regulated than other for-profit companies), they are pretty adamant about it. Understandably so, business-wise.

Regardless of whether their assumption is true or not, I wouldn't expect the CEO of said company to just come out and say "oh yeah, sure, we're influencers like any other media and we forward fake news too". It's just business sense imho.

As for what Mark truly believes, on a personal level, you'd have to be a close friend, not a journalist recording, to get privy to it.

I am not taking his word for it. Thats my opinion regardless of what Zuckerberg says.