That assumes the truth is relatively easy to unpack.

As someone who seriously considered building a fact-checking website, I am sure that I fit reasonably well into the group of people who would question misinformation, but often I can't find the truth without going through reams of government documents or sifting through tweets.

There have been plenty of things I have questioned, investigated, given up on investigating as unpacking it was a burden, and thought that it was more likely than not that such a thing was true. I have been wrong in that way many times.

I think the value sometimes is in having relevant resources to point to when in localized arguments. (If someone is repeating a falsehood, I can direct them to resources that refute it rather than having to do all the searching repeatedly).

Such arguments are usually emotional and spouting off facts is unlikely to change the other person's stance and instead make them double down harder.

I've attempted to engage with people in ideological echo chambers not by citing any specific facts that contradict their beliefs, but by asking them to state their own beliefs using more specific and concrete language. "What exactly is your definition of communism?", "Has Bernie made any specific statements indicating that he supports that policy? If not, what leads you to infer that he does?", etc.

The results? No engagement at all.

People do not want to be challenged in an echo chamber. Either talk to them (without convincing them of anything) outside the chamber, or walk away.

Agreed, often it's less about the person you are interacting with but about those reading your conversation.

Who fact checks the fact checkers?