While it’s more likely they will get more basic facts wrong, and mix up opinion with reporting.

There’s a different type of error distribution.

The baseline issue is that media firms doing boring news are not marginally competitive, against a new cycle driven sensational news channel.

The noisy channel will get more viewers, more ad space and eventually buy out the other channel.

Part of the problem is unbridled efforts to apply psych and marketing research to win market share (a corporate necessity).

And the other part is also an Intellectual malaise in many viewers.

I think we just give it all up and start working for the men with the power. The situation seems unsolvable, and people are pretty much only investing in systems That propagate this phenomenon.

All news needs to become more boring and fact based - yesterday.

This arms race for attention will not stop. Market competition is a crap system when a common resource is allowed to be exploited - in this case, collective attention.

How do you know they're actually kids and not working for RT?

Why does it have to be RT and not any other interest group? Tbh it's kinda pissing me off how these days everybody on the web pretends Russian people and organizations are the only ones using socket-puppets to spread "misinformation", just like Russia is supposedly the only actor that constantly hacks everything and everybody.

It's just reinforcing the current, rather hysteric, narrative that Russia is to blame for everything from Trump getting elected, to Brexit, and even the generally rising "right wing" sentiments.

As somebody outside the Anglo-Saxon sphere, looking at places like Reddit, it feels like people are being riled up for a war, and it seems to be working extremely well.

Your position is that anonymous, unregulated, uncredentialed, "non-profit" social media accounts are more reliable than conventional news?

Everyone has some biases... but I know which entity is more trustworthy. The one that stands by their name in public.