Your question is excellent. Let me clarify here:

I'm not for or against narrative pluralism. It's inevitable. There's as many narratives as there are humans, living and dead. It's a natural byproduct of multiple individual and collective perspectives.

Until the mainstreaming of social media, this was never a big deal. People lived in *relative* isolation, as transportation and communication technologies kept folks far more local, and information--daily paper, nightly news, literal town halls, church--dripped out rather than barraged us. We could make better sense, in short, because there was less to try and make sense of, and there were more filters. Again, this isn't good or bad, just less volatile.

In the past decade, every narrative started yelling in unison, saying very different things, to very different people. That's not bad, either, but what it means is our brains had to start holding endless competing perspectives and data points in our own heads. No one--and I mean no one--is equipped to do that.

And so, many of us default to assuming that all the new information that feels at odds with the old is therefore a lie, a lie constructed to serve the holder of said perspective. We grow angry, bitter, and we retrench. You're seeing that now. When things don't fit into a story we tell ourselves, we go to narrative war with them, instead of expanding and editing the story.

Truth arbitration--or rather incorporation--needs to happen, not because individual stories don't matter, but because not everything we believe is true, and not everything that's true needs to feel existential in importance. It's a big job, and it's unclear who should undertake it or how it should be undertaken. Mr Musk is not the right person, because his behavior strongly suggests he'd do a terrible, ruinous job of it.