Re: When trust verification is automated, it WILL NOT work as expected..
@P.Lee's "You don't need to tell untruths to lie."
"[some] people are saying..." is one of those weasely little phrases that journalists and others prefix opinions or editorial lines with to create the illusion of false consensus. Some people say that the Register is the only tech news site worth reading. People are saying that Corbyn is unelectable. etc. etc.
It's a surprisingly effective way of spreading lies, because these 'framing devices' are not direct lies. The most effective lies are ones that are difficult to check, such as "an intelligence agency spokesman who declined to be named said that they are convinced that Y has happened, that Z is responsible, and alternative explanations P and Q are not even worth discussing". And we're even invited to go to war on the basis of such fragments! It's not Macedonian kids chasing click bait dollars that are pushing this stuff, it's the most hallowed names in mainstream media.
"some people are saying..." is also a variant of X said Y. The reputation and identity of X (i.e. X's "ethos") has a direct bearing on the plausibility of the news. We'd do well to remember that even those with good reputations, such as Amnesty International or Medecins Sans Frontieres, have been known to peddle falsehoods.
If we could point at the mainstream media and say "Behold! What an impressive record of truth-telling! Your puny fake news site can't begin to compete with the ethos of those guys!" But we can't. Too many lies have spewed out. Too few retractions have occurred. It's business as usual. There's close to zero fact-checking performed on press releases, and there's close to zero recognition on the part of mainstream news organs that there is even a problem with their own editorial approaches. I put the blame squarely at the door of the news editors, PR specialists and intelligence experts who have systematically corrupted the so-called liberal media for decades. (That's 'liberal' in the classical sense btw, not the US journalistic idiom).
This problem is at least as old as Aristotle, who defined rhetoric not as "the art of persuasion", but as "the art of seeing the persuasive in any situation". The difference is important because it implies that some times you just have to accept that the other guy/journalist has a better argument/story. And not necessarily because they're right.
(And perhaps change tactic as a result).