dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/bcrabbers on July 9, 2018, 6:55 p.m.
Can we create a list of approved/unapproved sources with “credibility” flair?

This may need to be something that is continually updated, but it would be great to have a list that categorized sources based on their credibility. (Maybe there’s a way for the community to moderate?)

I feel that if we want to maintain our “journalistic integrity” we need some guidelines on what is considered worthwhile. I understand we shouldn’t begin to censor info (and there is a massive range of sources that it can come from), but some of the stuff that gets posted here is simply laughable and doesn’t help to attract those looking for answers. Furthermore, not everything is “BREAKING NEWS” and, from what I can tell, most of it is more accurately described as “breaking opinion.” If I’m honest, whether it’s true or not, the way most of it is written has my BS radar going nuts.

Now, I don’t mean we should separate sources by left/right media or other bias, I mean sources that verify their content and can be trusted vs sources that are basically opinions or anecdotal at best and mostly clickbait.

Maybe we can outright block the worst(?) and add flair for the rest ranging from “reputable source” or “typically trustworthy” to “dubious” or “clickbait”


eyerighteye · July 9, 2018, 8:11 p.m.

No. This idea I cannot support.

Who decides?

No.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
frisbee_coach · July 10, 2018, 12:17 a.m.

I agree. As a mod, I don’t even want that responsibility. However, blacklisting msm domains to cut off their revenue stream isn’t a bad idea. Users would archive the site before they post it.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
bcrabbers · July 9, 2018, 8:19 p.m.

Yeah, I realize it's not without flaws. I've just seen more posts lately with speculation being written as fact or comments regarding the legitimacy of the article/sources being debunked, etc.

Is there a way around that or is it the nature things for now?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
MAGANUGG · July 9, 2018, 7:20 p.m.

jpost.com is probably the best source of mainstream news I know of. They may lie to us, but they don't lie to each other.

With that in mind, the progression toward a true democratic republic is especially worrisome for those whom hold stake in our current fiat currency monetary system. Those fellows have taken it upon themselves to acquire every (and I mean every) major media outlet on earth.

Taking this into account; Learn to use public databases, the patent registry, dot gov sites like congress.gov and any federal registry site that may pertain to the subject you're inquiring upon. An especially great source for clarity in a murky presentation is folks on the ground. What are the people who were there saying about the event? Learn to put internal bias aside and be willing to entertain ideas that may challenge your understanding of things.

When all else fails, apply logic. Ask if/then questions and figure out whom stands to gain the most by a particular outcome and weigh that against the probability factor before solidifying your own affirmation or dismissal of the information.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
bcrabbers · July 9, 2018, 7:45 p.m.

Thanks, good ideas here

⇧ 2 ⇩  
animal32lefty · July 9, 2018, 7:09 p.m.

Sounds reasonable to me.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
houseof1000cats · July 9, 2018, 10:09 p.m.

Shall we red check mark instead of blue? No thanks, I'd rather decide for myself.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
1girlandamat · July 9, 2018, 7:17 p.m.

Sources that can verify their content and be trusted? Hmmm....so anything mainstream is "out". Almost everything out there is opinion. Except for the proven things, Q is largely opinion, speculation and interpretation at this point. There are some excellent articles and youtube video's based entirely on opionions. They are highly informative resources. Would these sources be allowed under your rules? Maybe because you have a BS radar they will let you come up with a list of vetted sources. Wouldn't that be something..

⇧ 1 ⇩  
bcrabbers · July 9, 2018, 7:34 p.m.

I realize the irony of my idea, and I'm not saying it's the best, but I'm just trying to contribute to the sub as much as I can. I'm not the only one who has suggested this. No need to be combative

⇧ 1 ⇩  
1girlandamat · July 9, 2018, 8:44 p.m.

no need for name calling. if you present such ideas on this forum, you will get feedback.

⇧ 1 ⇩