Your first task is to prove there's a problem at all. Kodablah (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18980290) is not the only one with serious doubts that there's any such thing as a problem that needs to be combatted.

Let's review a quick timeline.

The term "fake news" was hardly used until recently:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...

The huge spike corresponds exactly with the election of Trump and Britain voting for Brexit. Suddenly, fake news was supposedly everywhere and the problem of the moment. Before mid 2016 though, nobody talked about it.

To any outside observer it's very clear what has happened here. Several problems have intersected.

Firstly, a huge chunk of the left wing population doesn't really understand conservatism - not why people think like that, or even what they think at all. This isn't some idle speculation, it's actually been studied at scale:

https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/conserva...

Conservatives understand liberals at scale but not the other way around - Republicans may as well be an alien race, as far as many Democrats are concerned. So of course they look for explanations of why people can hold such obviously 'wrong' set of beliefs. And they find it in the belief that the population is as easily programmable as your TV set.

Rewind the clock a few years and you can find a lot of rhetoric about campaign spending. Citizens United and Obama saying there should be a constitutional amendment. The belief was simple - whoever spends the most on advertising wins over the weak minded and wins the election. Huge swathes of voters don't think for themselves, they simply vote for whoever they saw advertised the most. Because conservatives were backed by big business, allowing businesses to spend money on political advertising would doom the correct way of thinking to oblivion.

2016 rendered that idea completely untenable. In America Clinton outspent Trump 2:1 and in the UK the Remain campaign obliterated the Leave campaign in terms of resources and spending. Remain spent more on a single leaflet campaign than the entire Leave campaign combined. Yet both sides lost.

So now the money=winning line is proven false, what can be the explanation? There has to be something else brainwashing the weak minded population other than obvious political advertising. The conundrum was solved with the idea of "fake news" and the Russian bogeyman, who used ... Twitter ... to have an even bigger impact than political advertising. The fervour that was previously directed at the idea of unlimited ad spend was now turned on the idea of news sources that didn't cooperate and support Clinton (like Wikileaks).

The problem with this worldview is that it's as wrong as the previous belief. At least political advertising had a concrete definition which allowed it to be studied, and found to have little impact once people became informed about an election and who the candidates are:

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/gsb-cmis/gsb-cmis-download-auth...

"We argue that the best estimate of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on Americans’ candidates choices in general elections is zero. First, a systematic meta-analysis of 40 field experiments estimates an average effect of zero in gen- eral elections. Second, we present nine original field experiments that increase the statistical evidence in the literature about the persuasive effects of personal contact 10-fold. These exper- iments’ average effect is also zero."

But nobody can quite identify what fake news really means, hence the arguments over what is and isn't fake. It's probably the case that if Clinton and Remain had won, nobody would be talking about fake news or Russia at all.