And you have just fallen for the trap.
No, my post was about the fact that science provides no facts or truths. You yourself wrote
"thunderfoot's video explaining the truth". Truth based on what?
I simply stated that there was this nutty guy that was firstly a lyer and a fraud before he even started talking about masks, what he had to say about masks is easily found to be yet another lie.
Problem is, all those adjectives are opinions, not verifiable facts. Especially "Easily found to be", when I just linked to a recent study that explicitly says we do not have reliable data on this. See?
Just because you (or I) feel something is obviously true, does not make it objectively true.
My point is, whatever you think is obviously the truth or obviously a lie, is
relative to your opinion. If you start censoring based on that, no matter how good intentions you have, it will sooner or later devolve into a corrupt system where only
correct opinions are allowed. No such censoring system has ever, in the known history, been able to avoid becoming a corrupt one. Not even the academic ones.
The most dangerous path is when you start censoring content based on the author, instead of the content itself. It is itself a corrupt method, anti-scientific, because instead of the content of the message, it examines the messenger.
As a media, the only correct option is to avoid having to mark posts "true" or "false"; and not to try and filter or censor them using "truth" as a criteria.