Some observations:
-
I am more hesitant to post content in public spaces because I do not always have energy to do deep research needed to debunk fact-checking responses.
-
I am more cautious about what I post, as I don't enjoy being publicly shown to have made an error (which many readers will assume to have occurred if I don't reply to factcheck type criticisms)
-
As a result, I am slowing down. Sure, some things which would be in the public interest to be publicised are getting past me, but the quality of the posts I am making publicly is going up.
Ditto everything above for face to face conversations.
Basically the "fact-checking" and censorship is making me carefully double-check my conclusions before making any kind of public statement. If others are doing the same, this means that the quality of argument being presented from the side of those who question the mainstream narrative is being consistently improved and strengthened.
I think this explains the recent media debacle around Ivermectin. It is getting increasingly difficult for them to create the illusion of fact-checking, and as a result they are panicking and getting careless. This is making even more people start to pay attention. For example, my sister has started to research Ivermectin following conversation with me. (She is very trusting and has taken the Vax. All her information sources are mainstream). This weekend I was able to show her that almost everything she had read about Ivy in the mainstream is unreliable at best, and deliberately fradulent at worst. As a result I see the early signs of her beginning to question what she is being told.
So my take-away from this is, let us recognise the opportunity in the censorship, and just keep making it harder and harder for them to debunk the increasingly coherent and compelling arguments mounting against the media narrative. I still believe that Ivermectin is the key to unlocking the conspiracy around vaccines, covid, the election, and all the other malfeasance that lead up to what are increasingly looking like pre-meditated crimes.
To OP: I agree with your sentiment on fact checkers serving to slow down how much and what is posted. I do try and engage the same type of scrutiny to what I will forward from here, for example.
I've found a range of strategies that SEEM to have had an impact (I have very few people who are likely to pay attention to much of what I say without tying it to someone who has an audience) the first is to take messages that are likely to be shadowbanned and framing them in ways that don't explicitly state but reference a given subject.
Beyond that, we are at a stage where using the fact checkers known position can be used as a source. "You got sauce" "Well, any sauce I show is pre-false by fact checkers so, do you really want to know?"
Otherwise the censorship, when noticed by normies, will tend to wake them up in ways that casual conversation is likely to perform.