This is true in abstract but most of these claims have details which can be tested. You can’t disprove a perfect conspiracy but you can show that the named people don’t exist or weren’t in the place at that time, the “proof” image has incorrect details (e.g. remember the birthers alleging Obama had a birth certificate which mixed the name and seal of different countries and time periods?).

If it has enough detail to be tested, you can more justifiably mark it as fake. The vague unfalsifiable stuff is much less satisfying for people to spread.

To some extent, yes. Some fact checks are obvious lies of course, falsified to disprove initial claim (talking from conspiracy theory supporter's side). It's really complicated topic.

Definitely. I just think there’s a tendency to let perfection be the enemy of the good here: there are thorny philosophical issues but the vast majority of this stuff is not that hard to recognize as fraudulent. Facebook and Twitter tried to ignore the problem to save money, not because it was hard.

Completely honest question, how is that not fake data? Or you think there is a dinstction about fake news and fake data? Would you mind sharing this dinstinction? Thank you!

Not the prior poster. The reason it is a Russell Teapot is that the claim is unfalsifiable - it cannot be tested.

Yes, they often refer to “facts” that cannot be proved or disproved. You cannot question conspiracy theory because every your claim will be opposed with just created new one. You reason (logically), they think up a new claim. It's pointless process.

I see that my explanation to 101008 of a Russell Teapot was downvoted. That's sad for a board that prides itself on people with intellect.