One comment on the notion that these spread quickly because of "hope and positivity".
I think this is only looking at one side of the coin. What I think they mean to hone in on is the inherent advantage that sensationalism has in social media. Sensationalism is attractive in social media because it gives users social capital in terms of likes/shares/etc. (Or STEEM, of course.)
Other than that small nitpick, I think this is all right on.
It's not so much in reference to all fake news, but more the science news that tends to be spread based on hopes of cures and such. But indeed, there is science news about bad things as well (the other side), and that is indeed sensational for people to spread, but not "hope or positivity" hehe. Thank you for that feedback. I didn't think of that angle ;)
I think when you look at the less sophisticated propagators of this type of news are equally interested in the doom and gloom type of developments in the scientific community. It's one of the reasons I'm so tired of facebook and other similar platforms.