First, the "we" that I was referring to was "we as a society" and, more specifically, "we as technologists". As in, how can we create a technology and social norms that both encourage a fact-based narrative while being resistant to political manipulation.

Also to your specific example of the election, a lot of people who spoke out fairly quickly against the fraud information were operating on the factual, auditable information that both sides were presenting their data to judges of various persuasions around the country, and the judges were virtually unanimously concluding that there was no case. And then various recounts began coming back, likewise concluding that there was no fraud.

I don't know what standard of evidence you think people should have spoken out at. But that seemed at the time to be a reasonable level of evidence. And it still does. The judges in this case were literally a collection of people chosen to be trustworthy, with varying political alignments, who were making informed decisions on the basis of more data than I have, and consistently came to the same conclusion.

A similar kind of thing for fact checks would be a standard that I could be comfortable with. But it has to be similar. A collection of independent people. Chosen on the basis of methodology. With different political alignments. And it is only when they broadly agree that we are willing to impose rules.