Stop spending so much time being trolled by billionaire corps

A hyperconsumer of information can handle somewhere in the range of 300--1,000 messages per day. The ultimate limit is simply time --- at 1,000 messages, and an 8-hour workday, you're dedicating 30 seconds per message, maximum. If you dedicate all your waking hours to that, you can double that. If you give up on sleep (I don't recommend this), triple.

There are hard limits.

30 seconds, or 60, or 90, is not enough time for a hard debunk.

And the alternative is simply to ... consume far fewer messages. Meaning that most of what flies by (much of it bogus) is ... unvetted. Dendritic information filters function by distributing the bullshit-filtering task across numerous nodes. In mass-media contexts of publishing or broadcast, that role was filled (with, very admittedly, problems) by reporters and editors. (See Noam Chomsky for what could possibly go worgn. It's still ... reasonably good, particularly with multiple press channels, say, those which include Noam Chomskys or George Seldes or I.F. Stoneses.)

In an environment with an overabundance of information what is required are fast, cheap, minimally-biased, no-regrets discarding mechanisms. Reputation and trust mechanisms afford much of this, which means that yes, the vast majority of people do trust others, either experts or collectively, at making useful partitions of the total information stream.

This is alway why known amplifiers or creators of bullshit joerogan deserve to be dropped without any regrets.

(There are of course numerous others. That happens to be a channel specifically recommended in TFA, a fact which seriously degrades TFA's own credibility --- trust is not perfectly commutative, but it has transitive aspects.)

Incidentally, an advantage of choosing specific sources or channels is that those themselves can be examined and rated on their own performance. What's most critical is that sources afford cheap, fast, minimally-biased, and no-regrets performance. If a channel is tedious, if it is biased (and here, "bias" is based not on ideology but ground truth to the extent that that can be determined), if it produces regrets (choices are continuously second-guessed), then it is a poor option. Decisions aren't based on an ideal, but against alternatives.

Sources should own up to their own failings. I had a discussion a couple of months back on what such practices should, and do, look like (with someone apparently incapable of grasping the concepts, but that's another occupational hazard):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28261042

I disagree with your characterization, too. He has on people from all angles, including e.g, Dr. Sanjay Gupta from CNN, and he gives them a fair shake.

And yes, considering how "rare" vaccine adverse reactions are supposed to be, knowing multiple people who've experienced significant adverse reactions is quite unusual. Worth talking about even.

That's a cynical take, and it illuminates the importance of good education, so that "hubris" as you put it is minimized and right judgment is maximized.

Even more important when most children's education is more and more geared away from critical thinking, and instead towards the One True History.

... then proceeds to post an amazon link to a book