The New York Times did an interesting piece on a fake story that was quickly debunked by Snopes and a few other sources, but illustrates the process of how quickly a combination of bad (or no) fact checking and social media can spread faulty information. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/b...e-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Tucker did little research to see if his claim was true or not. [My emphasis] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/b...e-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 Two days after his original tweet on November 9th, Tucker posted a retraction with little success. The lack of an impact was actually measurable. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/b...e-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 There has been an uptick in stories in fake news lately. The Washington Post featured this story today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...-table-main_opportunists-633pm:homepage/story And another story from the Washington Post on Alex Jones from last Friday: https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...3dc190-ab3e-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html It seems that the linkages between the incoming Trump administration and conspiracy theories has focused more mainstream attention on the potentially serious consequences of fake, faulty, and poorly researched ideas. This process is old hat for Metabunk, but it seems apparent that a larger discussion is now taking place. I see that as a good trend or at least I hope it is. Time will tell.