'stopped' does not necessarily mean 'ceased' when discussing human behaviour. Laws against murder and theft stop murder and theft, but doesn't zero them.

You're equivocating. You said

"If the internet stopped people from falling for bullshit, "post-truth" would not have been 'word of the year' for 2016."

which is making a general claim. Whereas now you're implying that you weren't making a general claim about "stopped".

Oh, for fuck's sake, stop being so goddamned literal. Do you also tell people off for calling children "kids", because "kid means young goat"?

If you 'stop' corruption, it doesn't mean you 100% eliminate corruption. A journalist can 'stop people in the street' to talk to them, but that doesn't mean that they stand still rather that walk-and-talk. If a parent is able to 'stop' a kid sleeping badly, it doesn't mean their kid never again sleeps badly, just that the incidence is considerably reduced. Even a traffic 'stop' sign doesn't completely stop people all the time. 'Stop', when applied to human behaviour, is not the fucking same as corking a bloody wine bottle.

My original point stands that the person you were replying to did not make the claim you're implying they did. Your response was to equivocate. Claiming that I'm being too literal isn't addressing your equivocation.

Let me put it another way: in your subsequent replies you are implying that what your original claim meant was "If the internet stopped even just a few people from falling for bullshit, "post-truth" would not have been 'word of the year' for 2016." which is clearly not what you meant (and, BTW, would clearly be a false statement) - hence the equivocation.