Look, you’re derailing quite a bit, away from the central question here which is pretty simple. My entire thesis: “the goal of basic fact checking is infinitely more responsible than none”
I can find an overwhelming number of FRESH examples to support this. I can find mere dozens of examples where fact checking has not been enough to protect the almighty truth — and even then— for different reasons. Your argument boils down to: car accidents happen despite people having auto insurance, so why pick on those who are engaged in a movement to end the need for auto insurance?
The presence of an imperfect system does not destroy the need for said system.
So if you want to go write your own Medium post about those dozens, feel free. Because the problems of traditional media are an entirely different set of complex problems. Whereas I think we can all agree that a bunch of San Francisco millennials who have tech or literature backgrounds are clearly not engaging in basic fact checking before they recommend stories that so obviously support their personal political biases, thus when they launch a subscription platform boasting of “depth, truth-seeking, and understanding” that’s a problem that ought to be called out.