Research says that about 41% of Americans get their news and information primarily from Facebook. While that can be good and bad. It is only seemingly good because many mainstream news outlets can reach more people by branching out on social media, but bad because there isn't much policing that can be done about it, so fake news and misnfomrmations can be spread rampit.

One example of this is a fake photo that had been circulating of Bill Clinton with a hooker, however that photo had been cropped. Here's an article about it here: http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/15/no-that-is-not-a-pho... But I'm sure we all can name others like a certain fake photo of our 44th President which I'm sure there are plenty moe that don't have to do with politics.

Thankfully there are people who are woking on this. Like Google for example, who says that they'll take off monitization from fake news. The Daily Dot also got to speak with a media Professor who has already started a list.

“Fortunately, Melissa Zimdars, a media professor at Merrimack College in Massachusetts, compiled a list of “fake, false, or regularly misleading websites” that purposefully publish fake information or are otherwise entirely unreliable. The list, which has since been removed due to threats and harassment Zimdars says she received, also included sites that “may circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information” or “sometimes use clickbait-y headlines and social media descriptions.”

The list included both left- and right-wing publications and it is regularly updated or amended. Here is how Zimdars has categorized them:

“CATEGORY 1: Below is a list of fake, false, or regularly misleading websites that are shared on Facebook and social media. Some of these websites may rely on “outrage” by using distorted headlines and decontextualized or dubious information in order to generate likes, shares, and profits. These websites are categorized with the number 1 next to them.

“CATEGORY 2: Some websites on this list may circulate misleading and/or potentially unreliable information, and they are marked with a 2.

“CATEGORY 3: Other websites on this list sometimes use clickbait-y headlines and social media descriptions, and they are marked with a 3.

“CATEGORY 4: Other sources on this list are purposefully fake with the intent of satire/comedy, which can offer important critical commentary on politics and society, but have the potential to be shared as actual/literal news. I’m including them here, for now, because 1.) they have the potential to perpetuate misinformation based on different audience (mis)interpretations and 2.) to make sure anyone who reads a story by The Onion, for example, understands its purpose. If you think this is unnecessary, please see Literally Unbelievable.” (The Daily Dot)

In the article is a list of some Fake news outlets. Just in case you see something so you can double check. The next time you see a friend sharing a scandalous but FAKE piece, you might want to let them know- no one wants to look like an idiot.

sources: http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/fake-news-sites-lis...

http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/15/no-that-is-not-a-pho...