-->
@ponikshiy
Yes. It's an international community with a variety of opinions. You'll get a news story of say the NPP in Ukraine and then nuclear engineers, military and experts on Ukraine, Russia and Nato will chime in. I thi k if you remain critical and vet the information, you'll get a more clear picture of world events.4chan will go further with lies than legacy media, but that is why you fact check. Legacy media lies with spin and by trying to paint a stupid narrative. 4chan lies for LULZ.For example with the sub disaster, most of 4chan knew that the sub had imploded immediately, while legacy media wasnot reporting that it was the most likely scenario. Granted there were conspiracies that the sub didn't exist etc, but that is why it's important to be critical, and you have to be even more critical when a person presents evidence you agree with.If you a see a new piece of information and agree with it, you have to do more to tear that down than opinions you disagree with. The ones you disagree with, you naturally tear down in your head.
You might be right. Shame we don't have a lot of objective markers to point to.
I would pay good money to see a study that tested the validity of 4chan reporting compared to legacy media reporting.
It would be amazing to see a study that had a control of no vetting of information on 4chan, compared to a reasonable attempt to vet information using critical thought and sources, and then to compare both against the accuracy of legacy media reporting.
Hell, if I get enough spare time, I might even attempt to conduct the study myself. Would be an absolute bombshell if we could prove with objectivity that 4chan was a better news source than legacy media.