What gave you the idea that there is an end-game? The social dialogue is never ending.
Then this is a denial-of-service attack. Bad-faith actors can hijack the public conversation forever by simply refusing the budge. The public conversation then becomes a free and indefinite platform for them to spread propaganda, and any attempt to change that is portrayed as a great evil.
You can't consume every possible idea. You automatically filter them, most of it subconsciously, just like everyone else.
‘Never feed a troll’
How do you think these critical masses around _specific ideas_ are formed? Qanon isn't a whisper campaign.
A thought experiment: we burn all books about Area 51 alien stuff. The whole myth would probably die along with our generation. There's no more stuff reinforcing it, no large traces. No more grainy photos.
That original quote might work for a general ideology but I don't think it works nearly as well when applied to specific narratives.
(Of course this works in all directions, see the obliteration of socialist movements in the 50s and 60s)
Prove that an important function of society is fake truth purging. And define truth. How big are the fake truths, how much damage do they cause, and how expensive is it to disprove them? If a young child claims that the temperature of a hydrogen atom 52 light years away is 0.1K, but in reality it is 0.01K, shall we:
A. censor the child to stop the spread of misinformation B. print 8 billion flyers to correct anyone who may have overheard the child C. put teams of MIT scientists to run experiments to determine the most recent temperature of the atom D. ignore it E. claim it's 0K according to god's will
In a more practical example, most people are probably split between C, D and E. The C people might land on the moon sooner, the E people might be more fulfilled. D is watching their son's soccer game. Who is "right"?
Acquiring the true "truth" has a cost, and that cost may be too high, and until we have a proper document from god detailing the worth of each person, we can't know who should live and who should die. If we don't produce enough food, somebody will starve. Who should starve? Perhaps the person with the highest metabolism, to spare as much food as possible. Perhaps the dumbest, to ensure future generations aren't crippled and the problem gets solved quicker. Perhaps the meanest, to spare future conflict. Or perhaps future conflict is good, to weed out the weak. "Truth" might mean maximizing human potential, which could imply minimizing human "drag". Spray peanut dust in stadiums! Shoot people who wear glasses! Gene edit everyone to be 9 feet tall! Kill everyone and create and feed a world-spanning singular ultra-brain (skynet?), for _IT_ shall determine "truth".
The word "truth" almost has a political bias to it, belonging to the party of science-people. I say that with a straight face as someone familiar and trusting of mathematics. It's great that we can build F-22s and nukes with it, but, maybe we were better off worshipping Zeus. Actually, people are a relatively new thing, and the main spreaders of "lies". Perhaps the universe was "truer" before people came around. Perhaps birthing a child is to "lie".
And what is the endgame? What happens after our perfect system of rationalism solves every known fact and theoretical possibility in the entire universe? Did we win? Is our final score 42?
Truth is a lie.
--Bertrand Russell
It's an important skill to independently discern the likely from the unlikely on your own, but any idea repeated often enough becomes "truth", and it's an important function of society to recognize fake truths and purge them.