The best and only way to counter anti-truth is with truth, usually meaning transparency. There are always going to be non-conforming groups, you shouldn't be worried about countering their views explicitly if you're worried about general human wellness. Focus on transparency, and the natural scientific process will do the rest.

> The best and only way to counter anti-truth is with truth, usually meaning transparency.

Is that based on empirical research, or is it a statement of faith?

It depends on your definition of "best".

I'd settle for empirical research demonstrating it to be a successful strategy.

You could call it a statement of faith, but I would be very interested in any study showing that suppression of information leads to more factually correct opinions. But of course, if such studies existed, they should be suppressed, in order to lead to the correct opinion regarding the subject. The logic is self defeating.

Transparency is required so information can be processed completely. You ask for transparency of sourcing, because the statement 'truth counters anti-truth' is foundational.

It depends on the definition of "best." Countering anti-truth with truth is clearly the highest-integrity way of operating.

My personal experience is that it's also the most effective. I see a lot of countering anti-truth with anti-truth, and people can smell the BS there. At that point, they become distrustful and defensive.

For example, before someone lies to an anti-vaxer, it's easy to counter and convince with science and fact. Once someone lies to an anti-vaxer it becomes basically impossible to cross that hump.