Agreed. Instead of looking for institutional solutions, we can demonstrate the need for critical thinking and skepticism as individuals. This is a can-do solution we can start with now. The above poster's plea of, "there ought to be a law" removes the agency of the individual.
There are also serious problems with appointing fact checkers as impartial arbiters of objective truths. It is an untenable scheme. A naked appeal to authoritarianism.
> we can demonstrate the need for critical thinking
Good luck with that. Humans are not always rational and don't always act on their best interests, much less on the whole species' best interests.
If we leave saving our species to individuals, I wish the cockroaches better luck. I, personally, would bet on ants and bees, as they seem to be much better organized than us.
My alarm bells would go off if someone claimed to know what is best for the whole species.
If individuals are not rational as you say, then how would politicians, technocrats or other central planners be rational?
If an individual doesn't have the right to coerce you, how does a collective of individuals have the right to coerce you?
Individualism is the decentralization of information and decision making. It has a different failure mode. If we accept that men are fallible, then individualism allows for a competition of solutions and ideas. Humans will never be perfect. Decentralization allows us to progress and iterate faster than central planning, which has all of the same problems with what you call "irrationality".
There are also serious problems with appointing fact checkers as impartial arbiters of objective truths. It is an untenable scheme. A naked appeal to authoritarianism.