In addition to my first comment response.

What you’re calling “extreme” is simply direct pushback without the usual padding people have come to expect. That padding, hedging, soft language, pretending both sides might have a point, is exactly why misinformation keeps spreading unchecked. It creates the illusion that facts are negotiable.

Now, if the goal is to gently reassure everyone and avoid discomfort, then yes, a softer tone would be more appropriate. But that approach routinely fails to correct anything. It prioritizes feelings over accuracy.

If the goal is to actually challenge bad information in a way that’s unambiguous and difficult to misinterpret, then a firmer tone is not only justified, it’s necessary. You don’t have to like the delivery. But dismissing it as “extreme” avoids engaging with the actual issue, whether the claim being challenged holds up. If it doesn’t, then tone becomes a secondary concern.