There is also boat loads of research showing that just seeing false headlines results in people using that information to make decisions - even if they KNOW the headline was retracted.
You can debunk whatever you like, but at that pace of information flow today, this is essentially pissing into the wind.
By the time you have debunked one thing, many other topics have been generated and the conversation has moved on.
Its far easier to create content, and far harder to verify content. Our brains have some easily hackable ways to verify content.
We live in a time where one side is spending all their time and energy to create as much fake content as fast as possible. Even if we had infinite time and energy to expose and debunk it all, the attention of the viewer is limited.
As result, we'll never be able to convince people who've read this fake content that what they read is false.
There's only two ways this can end:
1. We block this kind of fake, unverified content
2. We accept living in postfactual times where truth is up to the highest bidder and fake content decides elections.
Mine's not a clear vision, but I imagine this will become a critical issue for a generation and more.
Some future hipsters may come to see Donald Troll as a useful harbinger.
The genie isnt going back in the bottle. Your 1. is not happening. Just consider who we would need to be, in a future world of effectivly infinite information channels.
Your 2. Is unappealing but appears to be a false dichotomy.
We don't know how best to proceed: interesting times. Let's remain open to various possibilities, especially if driven by ICT.
The way you counter misinformation is by debunking it and showing it is fake.