What is required is a re-assertion of reputation.
People have become far too willing to believe facebook posts, etc, and even respectable media has become far too willing to echo them.
Reputable media sources need to re-assert their credentials, or even individual bloggers etc, need to step up to stand behind their posts.
With a cadre of trustworthy sources, individuals can then take steps to exclude internet chum.
So does everyone else.
That's the Great Aporia here.
How do we establish credibility in an environment that is 100% free of trust?
Some people are logically more trustworthy than others. People who are not under pressure to push a particular narrative, for example.
Say, tenured university faculty. Educated people who's livelihood does not depend on saying the right thing. They get a high trustworthiness rating, right?
No. They are just as biased and have just as selfish an agenda as anyone else. Consider this, all of the scientific papers out there that we are finding to be erroneous lately had been "peer reviewed". Well, guess who those "peers" were?
We all have biases and agendas that leave us open to potentially compromising our integrity. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not claiming to know how we should go about establishing authority in an environment devoid of trust. I'm just saying that I don't think it would be wise to simply assign automatic credibility to the government, or tenured academics, or police, or the clergy, or whatever else.
(In the case of people and groups on the "left" or the "right", the bias and agenda is clear. They are compromising in support of their ideologies.)
Yet they are the only entity that can make laws against it