> .. solving none. It's offloading critical judgment skills and knowledge .. and offloading it to people that don't know better Are fact checkers any different

> .. solving none. It's offloading critical judgment skills and knowledge .. and offloading it to people that don't know better Are fact checkers any different than people who contribute to Wikipedia? It serves a purpose, but does come with a lot of disadvantages. > .. and may be subject to mass-producing them to satify the massive amounts of misinformation online, or they may be voluntarily or not following certain agendas or philosophies that may not reflect reality, and I believe this ends up with a tendency to extremism and marginalization. Isn't this the case already? Without "fact checkers" you still have the current population of people spinning stories and framing them in their own desired ways. I don't see how fact checkers are necessarily making the situation worse in that manner. > It'd be more useful to divert all fundings and investments they get into teaching rational thinking and information validation to people of all ages. You still have the problem of scale that you need to solve. There are a lot of controversies now-a-days. I imagine this proposed individual (or even a current, motivated individual) does not have time to investigate some of the more nuanced disputes.