that's how dissent in science has always been treated, going back to things like "the earth is round". i'm not saying it's the best system, but it's not new. historically, science gets it right in the end, but shifting the scientific consensus is a long and slow process that happens among scientists, not something that uninformed masses contribute to in any meaningful way. the barrier to getting widespread acceptance of your dissenting theory is much higher than for getting widespread acceptance of your theory that matches the status quo.

i don't think it's obvious that there's a benefit to making it easier to promote ideas that contradict the generally accepted science. if it's correct, smart people will eventually be convinced of that. promoting fringe theories on twitter amongst people who have no underlying knowledge of the subject matter won't do anything to advance the most correct ideas, only the loudest ideas or the ideas that most match our pre-existing biases.