No one found "some masks aren't better than nothing". That there was no statistically significant difference under particular experimental conditions is a substantially more limited claim. It's also improper to treat a study's failure to reject the null hypothesis as "the null hypothesis is true" just to begin with.
Ok, now apply the scientific standards you suddenly know exist to the claim " that's still better than not doing anything. basic physics." As it turns out "we failed to reject the null hypothesis" does not translate to "the null hypothesis is false" either. You're being completely absurd.
Whether I'm confident of "something is better than nothing" isn't really the issue. In a situation where you are protecting yourself and other people from illness and potential death, part of being a responsible citizen means erring on the side of protection. A mask is surely not going to make things worse (at least not directly).
Erring on the side of protection is great, but you have to be informed on what is protection in order to do so, and it's reasonable to give a fair amount of leniency to people who don't know what's effective, but now we have better data than 2 years ago, and an informed opinion is not "any mask is better than not doing anything". If you walk into a crowd expecting a cotton rag tied to your face to protect the people around you, you are being negligent.
No, I'm upset that you sit there pompously talking about "truth" whilst overtly facilitating bullshit, and even worse reckless bullshit dangerous to people's health.
You know what is reckless bs that's dangerous to people's health? Implying people should just wear any old mask, cause it's better than nothing.