> They just take what they hear as fact because they believe the source is trustworthy. No, they take what they hear as fact if they believe the source is trus

> They just take what they hear as fact because they believe the source is trustworthy. No, they take what they hear as fact if they believe the source is trustworthy. So how do we determine which sources are trustworthy? Who decides that? And how are they held accountable when they're wrong? These are very serious questions which need to be answered before I can support any effort to filter out misinformation. And to go back to the bomb-on-a-plane comparison, there is one key difference between that and something like election conspiracies. The person who yelled "bomb" is only penalized if they were knowingly wrong - something that's generally pretty easy to prove when it comes to bombs and fires. They aren't prevented from saying "bomb" in the first place and they aren't reprimanded until it's known that they were lying.