> objectively more likely to spread falsehoods. According to who? The "conspiracy tinged topics" that you describe so fairly were some of the most over-covered

> objectively more likely to spread falsehoods. According to who? The "conspiracy tinged topics" that you describe so fairly were some of the most over-covered stories, were substantially wrong, and were known at the time of being printed that they were substantially wrong. > Then you mention masks, as if there is something actually controversial there. There is. While masks were thought by scientists in authority to slow transmission, Fauci told everyone that masks were not only useless but harmful, and that people shouldn't be wearing them. He later admitted to lying about that. That may not be controversial to you, but if you can't imagine or empathize with people being upset that the government was lying to them in order to manipulate their behavior, you aren't very imaginative or empathetic. > There isn't (not to normal people, anyway) I think that when many people who agree with you see bad faith argument like this, they start re-evaluating their position.