Just in case you missed this sobering Washington Post item a few days ago, do take a few minutes to check it out (“What was fake on the Internet this week: Why this is the final column“).

The “What was Fake” column started about 18 months ago to debunk fake Internet “news.”

But it really didn’t work because the Internet has gotten more partisan and more blatantly cynical in creating and passing on fake news. Too many online sites now pride themselves in profiting off of fear-mongering, or so the WaPo writers concluded.

I find its conclusion profoundly depressing.

If you’re a hoaxer, it’s more profitable. Since early 2014, a series of Internet entrepreneurs have realized that not much drives traffic as effectively as stories that vindicate and/or inflame the biases of their readers. Where many once wrote celebrity death hoaxes or “satires,” they now run entire, successful websites that do nothing but troll convenient minorities or exploit gross stereotypes. Paul Horner, the proprietor of Nbc.com.co and a string of other very profitable fake-news sites, once told me he specifically tries to invent stories that will provoke strong reactions in middle-aged conservatives. They share a lot on Facebook, he explained; they’re the ideal audience.

And more:

Needless to say, there are also more complicated, non-economic reasons for the change on the Internet hoax beat. For evidence, just look at some of the viral stories we’ve debunked in recent weeks: American Muslims rallying for ISIS, for instance, or Syrians invading New Orleans. Those items didn’t even come from outright fake-news sites: They originated with partisan bloggers who know how easy it is to profit off fear-mongering.

Do read the column. And do ponder its implications.

Have a nice day.