The alt-left, on the other hand, can feel free to continue using Twitter and Slashdot.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with this issue, and FCC Commissioners can't change it anyway. But thanks for the red herring.

The law you're referring to is the Safe Harbor provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It's a law that was passed by Congress (with bipartisan support) and then signed into law by the President. Because Safe Harbor is part of a law, the only way for Trump to get rid of Safe Harbor is to get majorities in Congress to pass a second law repealing it. The FCC has nothing to do with this process.

Net Neutrality, on the other hand, was passed through the FCC's Open Internet Order. (It was passed 3-2, with the Democrats voting for it and the Republicans voting against it. Of note, nobody except the current chairman ACTUALLY READ the final order before voting on it because he distributed a "final draft" and then met with Google and had Google's changes inserted on the day of the vote.) Rescinding the Open Internet Order could be done with just the commissioners because that's what happens when you give up on trying to pass laws.

Right, but the IRS specifically (as presently constituted) is a law enforcement agency that targets its political opponents for extra-legal harassment. If we were to fire everyone that worked there and replace them with randomly selected citizens, the nation as a whole would be better off.

I will answer, if you don't mind.

Obama does have a little to gain (in terms of his legacy) from pro-Obama fake news continuing to proliferate, even in his retirement. But obviously, Trump has more to gain from pro-Trump fake news because he's going to be the guy for the next four to eight years. That's the answer to the question you asked.

I just wanted to point out how convenient it is that fake news is an issue of the future now that Obama's gains from it are mostly in the past.

Good thing Milo isn't getting married, or we (and more importantly, the government) would have to chase AppNexus out of business.

The guy descending from power has plenty to gain from this "fake news" misinformation campaign that's being waged to lump deliberate satire together with legitimate criticism as "unreliable."

CNN was claiming that JOURNALISTS have a special dispensation that they are allowed to see leaked classified information and report on it, but non-journalists have to take CNN's word for it. Which is horseshit.

Also, the DNC emails that leaked out weren't classified in the first place.

The whole Birther thing was started by Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign.

Yes. All of the EA Sports games with Ultimate Team modes offer the ability to purchase "coins" that can be used to buy in game "cards." The in game cards are also available for purchase directly with real money.

The full formal name of the game depicted in the FIFA games is "Association Football." This name is often shortened (depending on locale) to either "football" or "soccer." The name of the game comes from the fact that it's played "on foot" unlike polo, which is played "on horseback." (The implication was that soccer is a game for poor people, too poor to own their own horse.)

The NFL sanctions games in a sport called "Gridiron Football," which is also commonly shortened to football. The name comes from the fact that the oblong ball was historically 12 inches (one foot) long, when measured tip to tip. (The size of the ball was changed to the modern 11.5 inches in the 1930s to make the forward pass easier.)

You'll note that during the debate over Obamacare, when it actually mattered, PolitiFact and the other ostensibly neutral "fact check" sites were calling it true.

This problem with Facebook spreading false information has been going on for a long time. I remember a few years back, my acquaintances kept sharing news articles about some guy saying "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan," which turned out not to be true.

The organization you're referring to is called "Correct The Record."

Comparing the number of domains owned by Trump personally with the number owned by Clinton's campaign isn't measuring what it's alleged to measure.

For one thing, the Clintons personally owned ClintonEmail.com, not the campaign. If that was a derogatory name, it wouldn't have shown up in the count.

For another thing, the article doesn't count derogatory names owned by supporters. The Democratic Party has been supporting the Clintons since at least 1992, right? Hillary personally has been running for President since 2000. I bet the Democrats own a bunch of anti-Clinton and anti-Hillary specifically domains that they bought defensively. Those domains aren't measured in the count either.

ABC and DomainIQ picked a dumb way to measure something that gave them an excuse to bitch about Trump, and Slashdot fell for it.

There's a subtle difference between "The 20 year average increase in X was higher than the 20 year average in Y" and "The increase in X was higher than the increase in Y every single year."