> There's some truth to this, but what's the alternative?
I propose we try something similar to what we did when there was an undesirably low level of literacy in society: mass education. But in this case, the subject would be philosophy.
> Do we design communication systems with the assumption that all people are incapable of telling fact from fiction just to make it easier for those who can't?
I would say yes, but I would drop the "just to make it easier for those who can't" and replace it with something like "because an undesirably low level of people in society have substantial skill in logic, epistemology, rhetoric, etc, and it is at least plausible that this state of affairs could have negative consequences, including with regard to 'existential' problems like climate change or the preservation of 'democracy'[1]".
A big problem is that people tend to have pretty strong beliefs about their capabilities in any given domain, and the source of this confidence is very often substantially based on intuitive self-assessment, the output of which is a function of the very skills in question.
> I think it's far better to give people the tools to work out what is true/false and to debate difficult topics (even those without a clear answer) in a transparent manner.
100% agree. Though, we already have tools that could support that activity (HN is one such example), but they currently have no means of insisting that people do it (unlike in a classroom where unruly/etc students who are downgrading the learning of others can be and are asked to leave, in an adequately skillful way (sufficient to accomplish the goal)).
> I'd agree that both governments and corporations would be thrilled at the idea of a population that has no choice but to accept whatever they are told, but I think that as a people we're better served when we have the option to develop the skills to think critically and online platforms can play an important role in that.
Oh, humanity certainly has this option, it is not prevented by the laws of physics anyways. But having an option available does not guarantee that it will physically manifest - someone has to actually make it happen. Ironically, in the past I've run some of these ideas by moderators here and they....didn't have a lot of (even abstract) interest in the idea....which to me is a sign of...something.
[1] With luck, perhaps some day some non-trivial/adequate amount of humans on the planet would rise to a level of ability that they would be able to competently and accurately discuss the degree to which our "democracy" is actually democratic, a highly contentious and rather important topic that is absolutely butchered in any conversation I've encountered.
Free speech is another excellent example of a topic where most people (including genuinely smart people) simply lack the training required to discuss competently:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33823725