those activities are one of the byproducts of information technology and the internet. I mean, 50 years ago, nobody could have produced that kind of material - there was no means to transmit it other than printing and distribution with all of the associated costs. The internet completely obliterated the barriers to entry for publishing and enabled anyone to publish anything.

In an ideal world, that would be a good thing - freedom of expression, a rich diversity of views, and so on. But unfortunately in today's world, it simply adds to or amplifies confusion, misinformation and social conflict. All kinds of mischievous players use it for nefarious motives, ideological, monetary or political. So, no, I don't think these people do anything worthwhile or contribute to the greater good, although I also don't think there's much chance of stopping them, other than by exercising common sense, which seems not at all common in today's world.

Abdera ăbdē´rə [key] or Avdiraävdē´rä [key], town, NE Greece, in Thrace, near the mouth of the Mesta River. It is a small agricultural settlement. Founded (c.650 BC) by colonists from Clazomenae, it was destroyed by the Thracians (c.550 BC) and rebuilt (c.500 BC) by refugees from Teos. The town passed to Macedon in 352 BC and in 198 BC became a free city under Roman rule. The term Abderite was used by the ancient Greeks as a synonym for stupid. However, the philosophers Protagoras, Leucippus, and Democritus lived there.

For the record, I have nothing against sophists.

Were they ethical or unethical? Were they moral, immoral or amoral? How do you understand the issue of ethical responsibility and moral responsibility associated with the spread of fake news? — Thinker10

Closer to unethical, closer to immoral. might be amoral. However, there are two sets of agents here: First, there are the content producers. Content is to the Internet what products are to the world economy--never enough good stuff. Second, there are the content consumers. One might well ask to what extent gorging on garbage in the gutters of the Internet is ethical, unethical, moral or immoral, or amoral.

I expect people who have an undamaged brain to exercise some critical judgement about what they find in the gutter. (The Internet isn't all gutter, of course. Much of the content is excellent--present company included.)

It might seem unfair to judge indiscriminate readers harshly. Maybe they can't help it that they are stupid. Is it their fault that it's hard to judge plain fact from obscure, exotic fiction? Strong objection to their slovenly intellectual behavior is not too harsh. How so?

Even idiots or imbeciles are selective. Most east coast liberals, midwestern conservatives, and whacky west coasters did not believe the piles of juvenile fake news. The people who did believe it very much wished to read it, believe it, and repeat it. In their own fake world, anything might be true. When these morons step out of their fake world, say to deal with their family medical issues or the rotting roof on their house they usually proceed rationally (usually, not always).

Believing bullshit, whether it is your own bullshit or somebody else's is always a moral hazard.

The irony of it all (for me) is that Trump introduced me to the idea of fake news and he was busy denouncing real news as fake (not surprising because he wasn't exactly doing well in the public image front) while praising the fake news which portrayed him as a competent president as real news.

Truths and lies were swapped for each other. Truths were labeled lies and vice versa. The media was used against itself - it was surreal and still is I suppose.

SHOOT HIM! HE'S THE CLONE!