When everyone can talk to everyone else, lies will become apparent.

If a person is ego-invested in the lie (belief that my party is good, etc) then no amount of truth or evidence will dissuade them.

Moses led a group of slaves out into the desert.  All of the "slaves" had to die before they made it to the promised land.  (The new generation had to be born outside of ever having understood the way of life of a slave.  Our children will not understand a world war for resources, it will be, on its face, stupid)

Humans have a part of their brain that recognizes truth.  And, with this little itch in the back of their brains, the seek for truth.  As you seek, so shall you find.

är mycket bra at prata

Things that are true are easier to explain and defend than things that are false. 

I see misinformation as kind of like pushing on a string, you always risk damaging your credibility and even (accidentally) illustrating that certain ideas or ways of thinking don't actually make sense, and then you don't have any impact any more.

So eventually there are opportunities for other people to fill the void, even if themselves imperfect, cause they can use a slightly more truthful paradigm as a practical way to gain traction, even if they don't necessarily have any noble feelings or motivations. And under the surface there are always people who only care about what seems true and real. 

So the trend is always towards more true beliefs winning out, with maybe some hiccups of one step back and two steps forward along the way.

The fake news thing is funny, because if people are spreading bad information it will extinguish itself over time. There's never a need to censor, and the more we censor information into only centralized sources, those sources would in time become very fake and manipulative, even if they weren't initially.

<p>This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the second half of Nov 26. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $11.28 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.</p> 
<p>See the full rankings and details in <a href="https://steemit.com/curation/@screenname/the-daily-tribune-most-undervalued-posts-of-nov-26---part-ii">The Daily Tribune: Nov 26 - Part II</a>. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in <a href="https://steemit.com/curation/@screenname/introducing-the-daily-tribune-most-undervalued-posts-of-nov-04---part-i">our initial post</a>.</p>
<p>If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.</p>

Spot on. Whoever controls the narrative wins. 

Believing in fake news is only possible within a narrative --and none of them are new, but come from history and philosophical changes. For example:

People have to continue believing the image of Russia crafted by the West since even before Cold War to accept the fake news about the country, and Putin-as-dictator image (truth is he has to get acceptance from his govt same as Western leaders)

People have to believe in conspiracies of politicians in conjuction with church  and celebrities to accept things like pizzagate. And the myriad other conspiracies concocted about the 'powerful.' 

Even education can't stop masses of humanity from adopting the reasoning capacity of peasants in the Dark Ages.  

I heard someone say "anyone who reads history would never think to ask why we should."  It's the only way to think freely in this world; study the narratives and see how they've morphed and where our philosophies stem from.