I think there is a much more realistic and effective approach that the technical community should be pursuing. We live in the information age and yet the prevalence of willful ignorance, alternate facts, and fake news are treated like insurmountable problems. We need to change the way information is quoted to stop that shit at the source.
A major technical player, ideally Google, needs to build a framework on the internet that provides a public storehouse for papers and studies that are given a simple "fact-tag" number or ID that can be referenced and found immediately with a google search. Something like fact-tag "AA23". The information should be organized and presented in a way that is relatively easy for the general public to digest, such as a layman's overview followed by the office source. Then, every time a popular politically driven statistic or quoted study comes up, a page is created with the information and a fact-tag is assigned. And finally, news agencies, reporters, politicians, or just anyone trying to quote nonsense studies should be socially pressured to provide the fact-tag for that information so that everyone can go review it.
If Trump says that there are millions of people committing voter fraud, then the immediate next question should be: "What's the fact-tag for that study ?" Anti-vaxers quoting studies linking vaccines to autism - what's the fact-tag for those papers ? Climate change deniers telling people that the Earth is cooling instead of warming - what the fact-tag for that evidence ?
If you can't provide a fact-tag for your BS that is supposed to be "official" statements of truth from studies, papers, or surveys, then you're talking out of your ass. It could become a way to help force everyone to backup their public claims with sources that are super easy to find and review by the general public.
It doesn't even matter if the information tied to a fact-tag starts out to be false. Having everyone point to the exact same material in conversations and making it effortless to pull up, means that the information can be reviewed and disputed, and the fact-tag website can provide comments, counter references, and algorithm driven confidence scores. Then if someone says "according to fact-tag AS92, crime rates in the US are the highest they have ever been", you can immediately pull that up that page and see that the paper has been given a very low confidence score, it's been disputed by 23 experts, there are 14 counter-sources quoting the opposite, and it's been "disliked" or "downvoted" 14,587 times. "Your claim is bullshit - try again."