[librarianscott]

But people should be helped to draw their own conclusions with annotations where every time some crazy idea is repeated it is automatically flagged with "This idea has repeatedly been debunked by 37 national societies of medicine and 19 meta analyses of 2,000 peer-reviewed studies with a quality deemed high or superb," etc.

[rgrieselhuber]

Here’s one better: show people how to reproduce the same results given the same set of controls. Reproducibility should be the standard, not committees of debunkers.

[skinkestek]

All the time those fact checkers are provably biased (haven't seen none of them fact checking the early statements that masks were useless) they are useless.

If however fact checkers were a pain in the butt for mainstream media and politicians as well they would be much easier to listen to.

[gruez]

>every time some crazy idea is repeated it is automatically flagged with [...]

This is basically "fact checking". In theory it's good, but it inevitably degrades into a farce with stuff like [1] or [2].

[1] https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/785299708730339328

[2] https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95

[strangeattractr]

This is a commonly suggested solution that fundamentally misunderstands the problem. Most of these people aren't believing falsehoods because they don't have access to better information. It's because they don't trust the institutions that they believe drive science. Additionally, as these annotations only represent an opinion and are subject to change when they aren't correct they likely cause even greater distrust.