I was amased why all that "fact-checkers" always leave an impression of incompleteness and baselessness. I take a tour on "fact-checkers" "checks" about different counter-narrative facts and found one simple thing:
They never check if the fact is aligned with other known facts. This is basic check you have to do.
However, they just try to discredit source, deny the uncomfortable fact without any reason, discredit a person who dig the fact, manipulate words to make it look like the fact is debunked, etc. They just stupidly attack selected fact itself without any thought that any real fact is tightly connected with many other facts and to disprove it they need to disprove all other facts it connected with.
I began to think that all that thoroughly created "fact-checkers" network could be a good source of interesting facts. :) Just search for "falsed" facts and with high probability you will find something intersting.
Interesting, do they understand that they build a complex and expensive system that could easily be used not in the way they planned? :)
Another thought was about the facts that "fact-checkers" will try to avoid checking by any means, just to not attract any attention. That would be very interesting things too.