https://rwandanstories.org/genocide/hate_radio.html
The real money quote from that article: "David Rawson, the US ambassador, said that its euphemisms were open to interpretation. The US, he said, believed in freedom of speech."
When it started being used to mean any published account of purported facts that is wrong because inference is imperfect, evidence can be misleading, and publishers have some inescapable level of bias, then yes, it became a useless term. But it is not useless to distinguish between largely good faith attempts by real organizations with investigators who are at least trying to discover, verify, and publish facts, but some of the time fail, and outright fraud committed by people making up the entire endeavor wholesale.
There is no reason at all we should believe authorities cannot accomplish the latter.
Having any single entity determine what is "fake" and what is "real" is incredibly dangerous. We can't even agree if 72F degrees is the correct room temperature - let alone complex things like abortion or if fat is bad for you.
To have any authority say one side is correct fails to understand how the structures of scientific revolution work. Much more likely they do understand and are using "Science(TM)" to force ideological agendas.
Full disclosure: I have never used Facebook.