As I said "nobody is in charge", by which I also mean that nobody gets to decide what is correct.
But you could opt-in to have other people hold you to a high standard of intellectual honesty. That could include not spreading information that you knew at the time was unreliable, but would get lots of zaps.
It's still up to yourself or your group of peers to figure out what standards to hold and how to enforce them. The latter is a really hard problem if your goal is to avoid group-think.
Voluntary-basis fact checking is interesting, but honestly I don't see it actually working except in edge cases.
It indeed remains to be seen. Perhaps one day someone figures it out.
I do think the incentive now is too much such that the silent majority can't stop nonsense (in their eyes) from spreading. Unless you speak up, the default is for the spreader to receive likes, sats and reposts from the subset who agrees.
To some extend that happens in a bar too in that people will avoid confrontation. But there's a bit more signal in the form of blank stares. Maybe fact checking isn't the right way to address this though.
