I agree, the sentiment is absolutely nihilistic. "I don't think fact checking websites should present themselves as the only source of truth" is separate and r

I agree, the sentiment is absolutely nihilistic. "I don't think fact checking websites should present themselves as the only source of truth" is separate and reasonable argument to make. "I don't think fact-checking websites should get involved with controversies because it gets ugly" is a rationalization of ignorance. Yes, fact-checkers who lack credibility are terrible. We shouldn't listen to organizations that repeatedly mishandle or mishandle delicate subject matters. But the fact checkers who do do their research, who have a track record of being mostly correct in their appraisals, should we just condemn them to ignominy? Should we give up on knowing right from wrong, truth and untruth just because it's hard? Because it's difficult? Of course not. If we agree that the truth behind important subjects are worth knowing and worth spreading, then it follows that we need to support those who can spread it. Running away from critical thinking is no solution.