Which I think, while not unreasonable, causes a problem because human beings are not really rational most of the time. Decisions are made in a split second based on gut feelings. The extra energy and time required to vet every piece of incoming information for accuracy is too demanding.
Personally I view the whole truth thing a lot like DNS propagation. Someone advances an argument that is met with consensus. Takes a while for this to percolate around to the point where it enters group consensus. Whether it's objectively true or not is mostly irrelevant. For something to be considered true the only criterion it's required to meet is mass acceptance.
What's changed with the internet is the speed at which these truths propagate around the hivemind. By extension, they can be replaced with more popular worldviews at the same speed. So now we're living in a maelstrom of ever shifting truths. There's barely enough time to consider a fact before it's been superseded by half a dozen conflicting ones. Consensus? Forget it.
My personal opinion is why bother even trying. There's little or no profit or lulz in doing so and it's fucking impossible to boot. Makes more sense to me just to cherry pick ones that look likely to best serve my agenda (whatever that might be at any given moment in time) and do my best to help them spread.