It almost feels like the only solution (for one aspect of the problem) is for the "good guys" to outmeme the "bad guys". But of course, that's much, much, much easier said than done.
The truth is always changing, entertaining controversial hypotheses is reinforcing or exposing the truth. As my awareness, research, observational and social skills have expanded, so too has my worldview. If it we represent a worldview as a polygon, where each time you accept a new story into your worldview you add that point as a new vertex to your shape. What happens as you validate and accept more points outside your ahapn? Your total perimeter likely increases is length, ever increasing the total number of potentially mysterious stories available to you. The larger your worldview, the larger set of "what ifs" become available to you, "what ifs" produce larger impacts requiring larger and larger changes to your worldview. If you dont entertain the what ifs and discuss potentially impactful what ipfs, the more cataclysmic the potential change you'll have to make.
He likely asked In jest, but I feel it was probably healthily for Niel to retell the facts for himself as it was for Joe to entertain the unlikely idea, but incredibly impactful the story is if it's not the whole truth.