> "Google said it had added more detailed examples of problematic pages into the guidelines"

'Problematic'. There's that word, again. The news need not even be 'fake' anymore. Simply 'problematic' will do.

Here's Mark Zuckerberg not long ago:

> While the amount of problematic content we've found so far remains relatively small, any attempted interference is a serious issue.

Problematic to whom, one wonders? The loser? Those who feel most aggrieved? This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course).

Hillary Clinton, with much irony and little self-awareness, summed up the intent behind this move in her latest book:

> “Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism....This is what the Soviets did when they erased political dissidents from historical photos. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. “The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust towards exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves”.

So the message is clear: Trust us, you dolts. We know best.