I think one of the lessons of the history "accelerate the contradictions" ( http://acceleratethecontradictions.blogspot.com/2010/04/acce... ) is that putting the public in a situation where they have to improve lest there be a huge disaster, is a good way to get a huge disaster.

People aren’t perfect. Asking for large-scale, across-the-Board improvements in critical thinking is identical to just advocating for the status quo.

It’s also destructive. People prefer their existing believes to be verified. Making „trust no one“ popular just gives them license to discount any evidence contradicting them. So Wikipedia says illegal immigration is at a 30-year low? Those numbers must be fake. Homeland Security has the same numbers? They are in it together!

And how would you, even in principle, verify anything if you trust no one? I have absolutely no proof that El Chapo has anything to do with cocaine. I can’t examine any documents from the trial myself. And even if I could, they could just be fake anyway. Who knows how big the anti-Chapo conspiracy is? The recordings may just be voice actors, and why should I trust the translator?

> People must think about why they are hearing about something and the layers and goals that are behind it and drive it.

The truth can be benefitial though. So "the drive" for spreading information doesn't necessarily means the information is wrong.

"People must think about why they are hearing about something and the layers and goals that are behind it and drive it."

But do they or will they? The proliferation of flat earth videos on YouTube suggests otherwise. In a perfect world everyone would critically examine what they hear, but a lot of people just feed their existing biases.

(To be clear, I'm not suggesting that flat earth videos are banned because they seem harmless, if stupid. Anti-vaccine content, on the other hand, needs some additional context at the very minimum.)