They’re necessarily indifferent to the truth, and attached solely to the outcome: the beliefs they wish to plant within the minds of their targets.
How do we know whether this claim is false news? How would we go about checking?
If that claim would be true then you would find fake news providers be willing to do things that reduce their traffic in return for convincing more people.
For a good chunk of problematic outlets I doubt that’s the case. There are many different actors that have very different motivations. Supplement salesmen like Mercola or Alex Jones spread a lot of stories that are false but they work very different then no-name outlets and bot farms.
To actually tackle the subject in a fact based way, it necessary to seperate the players and look at their agenda.
To me “The important actors care more about the beliefs they are spreading then they care about making money” seems problematic bullshit.
How do we know whether this claim is false news? How would we go about checking?
If that claim would be true then you would find fake news providers be willing to do things that reduce their traffic in return for convincing more people.
For a good chunk of problematic outlets I doubt that’s the case. There are many different actors that have very different motivations. Supplement salesmen like Mercola or Alex Jones spread a lot of stories that are false but they work very different then no-name outlets and bot farms.
To actually tackle the subject in a fact based way, it necessary to seperate the players and look at their agenda.
To me “The important actors care more about the beliefs they are spreading then they care about making money” seems problematic bullshit.