But there may be a broader issue here and it is not so much the medium of dissemination as a more basic capacity to critically assess what we are given. Ever since the internet changed our lives there has been an abiding concern that for all its wonders of access and egalitarianism, an inescapable truth is unchanging; that information doesn’t amount to knowledge or for that matter wisdom. All manner of matter is available but how to distinguish what matters?

“Filter bubbles”, where the algorithms of Facebook concentrate an individual’s newsfeed around their user habits, effectively giving them more of what they want, have been blamed. The echo chamber of self-affirmation becomes potentially more distorting with false information. 

But one critic of this theory, Professor of Communication R. Kelly Garrett argues this is based on the false assumption that there is no exposure to contradictory or differing beliefs.  He argues pre-existing political identities most profoundly shape beliefs and this in turn frames the choice of news consumption.  This is as true of Facebook as it is of the choice of newspaper or TV channel or what we read on the opinion pages. 

But Professor Garrett also highlights social media has the added driver where social media posting and sharing is fuelled by emotion and often in politics this is anger. Anger makes people even more willing to accept partisan falsehoods if they agree with them or it makes preformed identities look good. The primeval human trait of tribalism is nothing new;  the vehicle that drives it is more swift and potent. The responsibility we all have, to calmly pursue and analyse what we consume is greater than ever.