The problem with this is simply, that if some people don't understand the science, other that ALSO don't understand it can tell them they DO understand it. Who should tell the differens, besides the people wo really understand it?
There are three groups or movements in question:
Rhodes Must Fall: protestors unhappy with having a large statue of Cecil Rhodes (founder of De Beers, "architect of apartheid", extreme white supremacist) on their campus.
Fees Must Fall: Large protests against university fee increases that used the naming convention
Shackville-TRC: advocates for alternative dispute resolution for those students who were expelled for participating in the protests.
"Science Must Fall": a hashtag made to mock one single student who said very crazy stuff in a video on youtube.
There is no "science must fall" movement documented, there was one viral story about one single person saying one single dumb thing. It went viral on Reddit in the /r/videos and /r/rage sub-reddits (those bastions of coherent discourse). It was picked up by click-bait sites who implied the existence of a movement because the angrier you are the more likely you are to click "share".
This is an excellent example of the exact problem being discussed, although I'm not convinced transparency into the algorithms is the solution here. We already know exactly why these stories were pushed out to people's feeds: this type of disinformation makes money.
You wouldn't necessarily know it from the framing text search engine bots would have scanned.
The issue is really one of trust.