That's why misinformation labels aren't really a problem. If Snowden posts that they NSA is spying the government could flag the claim as misinformation, but fl

That's why misinformation labels aren't really a problem. If Snowden posts that they NSA is spying the government could flag the claim as misinformation, but flagging Snowden's post doesn't make it go away and Snowden came with evidence which the public could review. Once the public saw that spying was happening, they'd know the government lied and the next time they saw something flagged by the government as misinformation they'd be less willing to assume that to be accurate, and eventually might even start to assume that things flagged as "disinformation" by the government we're more likely to be true than not. As long as the fact checking is transparent, there will be an incentive for the fact checker to stay honest and when they fail we should adjust our understanding of what the flag actually means. I've gone through that already with popular fact checkers like snopes. I still consider it to be a valuable resource, but I've become aware that they allow bias to influence their findings and that they can't be trusted blindly. Really no one source should be blindly trusted and that's something we should be trying to let people know, but warning labels can still be helpful and also revealing about how adversarial our government has become. A government that can't be trusted not to repeatedly mislead the public is one that should be voted out and replaced.