Bruh. I'm with you on IP being useless, but insisting on something being a "fact" is meaningless.
It's a fact that everything can be represented in binary. You can identify every knowable concept as either "cat" or "not cat". That's a fact.
Now... who cares? What does that being a fact mean? It means nothing. It's not useful. It doesn't prove a point any more than what you're saying does. All information is a number, that's a fact. Okay. Now... so WHAT?
The charge here is that some public information deserves protection. You disagree with that but, again, who cares? Prove why your opinion on that is relevant to any other human being, or engage with your irrelevance all by yourself. On the "protect public info" side, we can say that things like your social security number needs to be necessarily public, but we need to be able to stop people from using it however they want. There are indexing reasons for that. There are medical reasons for that. There are (yes, far too many) financial reasons for that.
And if you don't like that example, let's try one more directly applicable with a creative example: trade marks are public info. But if we let every person do whatever they wanted with a trade mark, they lose the real, tangible value that they provide (iconography is foundational to how human brains efficiently interpret information).
So pick you poison, but then engage with the actual poison; don't just wink behind smug tautologies. Tell us how, in your view, we can have a framework that provides the values that we get from IP, when we don't protect IP, as a concept. Because, buddy, I've been longing for, and working towards, that kind of framework since I figured out how pathetically inept IP is at actually doing what it does.