So what is your proposed mechanism for attempting to maintain a commonly-observable reality? People have shown throughout history that they have an incentive to bend truths to suit their narratives, often to the detriment of society. How would you address this?
The first would be being honest enough to say that many statements are not hard and fast facts, but opinions. If we say ice is frozen water, then that is a solid fact (leaving aside dry ice etc). But if we say such-and-such is a good/bad leader that is often mostly based on one's opinion of what good/bad leadership entails. In many cases, one person's good leader is another's bad leader.
It's often not a hard and fast distinction. Calling a leader good/bad because of policy or manner would surely lean more to opinion. If that leader definitively partook in activities that are the subject of the Epstein files, then that's less opinion and more a question of the factual accuracy of the recorded material (assuming it exists). Regardless, said leader would obviously have incentive to cast it as a lie
While technically true, you have censored and suppressed the truth.
Almost all ice has mineral impurities in it, and is therefore a mineral. Therefore water is actually lava (molten ice) and should be referred to as such.
Your depiction of ice being merely "frozen water" as a fact, and not emphasizing it's equality with lava is classist and clearly agenda driven. /s
The fact checkers can continue to do what they are doing now, they just won't get a visa. They aren't being stopped from doing their job, just can't do it in the US.
I get that your overall sentiment is fact-checkers aren't doing legitimate work, but I'm not sure if you see that the choice you describe can literally only reinforce that sentiment.
If your opinion is that fact-checking as a concept is bad then that's one thing, but if not then I'd be interested to know what alternative(s) you'd suggest
