This is similar to why I am suspicious of many “fact checks”, the amount of effort it takes to produce them makes me think that it’s often more about damage con

This is similar to why I am suspicious of many “fact checks”, the amount of effort it takes to produce them makes me think that it’s often more about damage control for a specific special interest group than it is about general facts and knowledge, and the quality of many “fact checks” seems to reflect this often as well. Perhaps this is a sub-law of sorts. There’s a similar one where fact checks will start out with one premise in the title, provide a completely different fact or two that they’ve “corrected”, and think they got away with people thinking they have “debunked” the original premise when really it was just a deflection. And often they work since many people just read the title and think if a fact check exists, it must be a true debunking.