No. The basis for fact checking is that the population lacks the time, the expertise and often the inclination to verify every claim, especially on complex topics, for themselves. This isn't me being elitist or calling anybody stupid. I am very much including myself in "the population" here.
Take climate change, for example. What do you know about it? What's your background in geology and meteorology and physics and chemistry, just a few of the prerequisites you'd need to interpret the data. How much time have you spent analysing the history of the planet's climate? How confident are you that you could, without any help, differentiate between a graph that told you the truth about historic temperatures and a graph that totally made up the figures?
Again, I'm not looking down on you. I, for sure, couldn't do any of this. So I need help interpreting the gigabytes of data out there on the topic. So do you. It is the height of arrogance and delusion to think you don't. And this is true for dozens of other topics too.
This is what fact-checking is for. People can still come to different conclusions, I'm not talking about banning anybody, but they should at least come to those conclusions based on accurate, factual data.
Fact-checkers, generally speaking, do an excellent job of this. It's just that we take it for granted when it's working properly and don't even notice the myriad ways we rely on it. Fact checking is embedded at every level of information gathering. Even I, just a guy operating by himself, fact check each of my claims carefully, to the best of my ability, so that I can be confident the things I'm saying are true.
Do I make mistakes? Probably. Nobody has ever pointed to a factual mistake in my writing, but I'm sure I've made some accidentally. And the solution to that mistake is not to say:
"Well, Steve, you messed up. So don't bother to fact-check anything you write ever again. We'll just leave it to the people in the comments to point it out if you say something that's untrue."
It's to acknowledge the mistake, identify how and why I made it, and say, "do better next time." And to watch to make sure I don't make that mistake again.
Again, your underlying point about fact checking agrees with mine. The way fact checkers operate should be far more transparent and should be far less susceptible to outside influence. These are criticisms that can and should be addressed. But we can and should do this without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The line between "hyperbole" and lies is very thin. And bad actors use this grey area (and outright lies) to lead people to some very wrong conclusions. We should be very careful therefore about how easily we let our emotions sway us when we don't have evidence.
