But i'm terrified of the current loud support toward censorship and authoritarian suppression of incorrect ideas. We have a lot of historical evidence of just how bloody that always turns out. So I choose to believe in the power of openness and competition of ideas.
As others have posted above, we will never have a time where it's possible or desirable for each of us to validate the truth of every claim, so that means we will have to find trustworthy arbiters of truth. I think that this should happen by people showing they are trustworthy and earning respect, rather than using authoritarian control to shut down those with differing ideas.
Much of the media today has lost such respect, and deservedly so. You can not fix this by suppression of free-speech, but only by creating honest organizations that aren't afraid to respectfully show the ideas of those who see things differently -- even if it's just refute them. Organizations that _trust_ the viewer to decide between fairly articulated positions.
The contempt for our fellow man when we say that bad ideas must never see the light of day or enjoy the same platform as government-approved ideas is a deeply paternalistic and ultimately anti democratic idea. It's elitism at its worst.
(For example, we need to be able to trust that they have a sincere opinion and aren't paid shills for a corporate lobby on a PR mission to waste our time, emotional energy, column-inches, and attention.)
If you feel a growing sense of dread as it retreats, it's a good time to consider whether you know others who have expressed a similar sense of dread that other things in our world have come unmoored, and whether they could use some help keeping them tied down.
Even society is shown to be untrustworthy, and the social processes of science.
Thus some reactionaries want to replace trust with authority. Or markets, which is another name for social proof, but with much less transparency.
Ultimately the other parts of trust are verification and reputation, which are both not unassailable. (Sybil style attacks, bribery, institutional and social biases.)
But, our saving grace might be simpler: cooperation without trust is possible and might be as efficient if things get bad enough.
Anywhere you have trust, there's a potential for abuse. A seemingly natural response to abuse of trust is to find a lapse in the victim's vigilance and start strapping on your own armor. I listened to a podcast this fall (sorry, I don't recall for certain--my best guess is that it was peter pomerantsev on Ezra Klein's podcast) where the guest suggests that some institutions/relations (like markets) depend on trust to produce value and may be undermined or degraded if enough participants take an individualist caveat emptor approach.
It is hard to know, in a complex adaptive system, what new equilibria will emerge downstream from a big disruption. We certainly could emerge through the other side with better epistemologies. But I don't see it as a given. Thinking is hard. Proving anything is harder. Skepticism can be good (and I suspect we need more--though I don't think it's terribly well distributed or applied at the moment...), but it's also easy; it requires no trust, knowledge, thinking, rigor, logic, or proof.
So, I'm troubled by the possibility we'll dig ourselves into a deep world-shrinking skepticism (a callous) of anything we didn't/can't personally experience. It can be well-founded on real abuses of trust. It may even be the sum of individual rational choices.
Neither would necessarily keep it from unmooring things we mistook for solid ground. And, when someone finally notices one drifting, there may not be enough trust left to agree on fundamentals like: is it adrift? is that a problem? was it ever tied down? is there anything we can do? should we wait for a bit to see if it drifts closer first? should we act?