> NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third party "fact checker" I don't think the article claims that. How I understood it, a person at r

> NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third party "fact checker" I don't think the article claims that. How I understood it, a person at risk might be unaware that a video they watched has been proven false; in that context letting them know about it might help them. Later the article says "always listen to people's deeper concerns".