A nice idea in theory, but the fact of the matter is that there's coincidentally been a strong push by the mods to have nonsense like the Daily Mail promoted here. If you look at the posting histories of some mods here, you'll see that once they've been promoted to mod status, somehow nearly 50% of their media posts start to come from the Daily Mail.

This is simply something that the users of this sub now have to deal with, the key is to be vigilant in the new section of the sub and continue to try to analyze information critically.

Some just puke content all over the place without any regard for its subject or origins. From what I've seen, anyhow.

Every source tells you something- if only where the bias lies. Granted the daily mail is a pile of shit, but it's always nice to know what agendas getting pushed to which demographics.

Underrated comment.

Who determines which sites are credible, and by what metric?

Facts. Do they have hard evidence. Or is it just a pro russia blog stating that sources inside the kremlin states Putin has kicked out the Rothschild's from Russia forever hurray

Facts are hard to discern on the internet. Doesn't cost much to register a website and start spouting off about stuff. Quite different than days of old where someone had to write a book, get published, then put it to market.

I'm apolitical on most of this back n' forth stuff, but what's it to say that maybe the Kremlin did kick out whomever? Seems to me you are seeking information that is only valid to the ideas you've already determined in your head. When something conflicts with that you perhaps get agitated.

Because nothing has changed that's why. Putin still meets with all the world leaders that are rot-aligned. Listen, don't do the easy "oh you just believe what you want to believe"... it's dismissive. My point still stands. Why should I believe something with no sources? If you want to that is great. It would be very easy to tell if it actually happened.

Your argument is incredibly flawed. What you've submitted above is broad and suggesting a fundamental framework in discerning information, which is swell. But then you go off on a Russian tangent which sort of negates what you're imploring others to do. If you're are going to do that (inserting your own example of sure-thing information) don't you think you should highlight where you acquired that information and how YOU determined it to be credible?

I didn't go on a tangent I responded to your question.

C'mon bridge dweller

You had no reason to insert any reference to any current topic. Your submission itself could have stood as is, maybe with some additional info on what to look out for. Instead, you've used it to shove in a little jab at whatever the hell you're opposed to. Get it all out then, we'll wait on your sources and how you've stringently vetted them. I'm all ears, really. The floor is yours..

And I quite like my bridge, knowing full well it pisses people off when others refuse to choose a side --as if there are always two definitive sides to quarrel over.

You're right. An impartial post not referring to Russia in any way gets replies about Russia and Putin. I've lost hope.

Facts. Do they have hard evidence. Or is it just a pro russia blog stating that sources inside the kremlin states Putin has kicked out the Rothschild's from Russia forever hurray

I asked a simple question and the above is what I received. I will of course make note of it.

Sure I did. To prove MY point. Good day.

You've proven squat and you know it. That is why you flee..

That is why you flee

Not only did that fellow take a leap, the submission OP checked out too.

I noticed..

What a weird thread. Amusing, but definitely weird.

Probably one of a dozen account they've been through. Some users are not necessarily a plant by some nefarious entity. They're just regular people who head for the hills anytime someone gives them legit conversation or questions. Probably a younger guy, not quite sure what/who to think or believe. In a lot of ways, I feel bad for them. He'll return..

You're boring me with your pseudo-intellectualism. I answered the OP by saying we need facts to be able to discern truth. I used a topic of an article here that's controversial that has no facts to back it's claim. That's not on me to do so. It my example. My fact. You went on your tangent taking the Russia thing personally. Sorry. Don't know what you want from me.

I used a topic of an article here that's controversial that has no facts to back it's claim. That's not on me to do so.

Yet, you support, perhaps push.. things like this (your words):

And it's because of the same reasons that pizzagate got banned. And, they are also one of the only subreddits that are openly discussing the pizza gate scandal.

I simply want you to explain to the rest of us idiots just how undeniable, credible information is acquired. Explain "your fact".

I'm so confused by what you're trying to do. What do you want?

I can't help you read from here. Tell ya what, let's call it day. I've left a gift in your inbox (don't worry, it's harmless).

Have a good one.

Perhaps we should. Thought you were gonna want to argue flat earth with me next. God bless. May you continually RISE.

Curious as to how this OP with a 2 month old acct. with two posts knows or even cares about where the content of this subs sources comes from.

Curious how a users acceptability depends on their age of account and how many times they've posted.

You talk about some long standing practice. I say it sounds curious that you would even know after having only lurked for two months. Anything else?

There is a world that exists outside of reddit believe it or not, a world which operates via this long standing practice. I only seek to offer a suggestion to improve debate.

Let us hear the "News" sources you would suggest the "We" rely upon then. You do know that The National Enquirer has actually broken big news stories and know one would ever consider them a reliable news source.

Maybe I just misunderstand the point of this subreddit.

Explain? Maybe I misunderstood. I thought the idea was to try and expose conspiracies. People provide info from where ever. It gets discussed and is either proven false, plausible or true. It is easy to discount sources offhand from first glance.

Doesn't really make a difference with so many bots/shills they'll find a way to bury your information, say the topic of targeted individuals for example, you describe experiences and they say you're crazy, OK. You link doctors and whistleblowers saying this is really happening and you're still downvoted/shilled to oblivion.

Reddit's gone to shit and the bots/shills insure it stays that way. This and mass influx of information online is a ploy to mess with people's discernment no doubt, all we can do now is hope that people see what's happening, I know they like to make it seem that everyone is brain dead but almost anyone I've ever spoken to knows we're slaves to the system and no one knows what to do about it.

You mean like CNN?

Exactly...the "obscure" websites are the only ones that are not locked into the MSM establishment narrative. They will be the ones to most likely be talking truth because they are not owned by the big 6...and when does this sub give a rats ass about impressing the general population?

It's just these new people trying to guide the narrative and narrow our investigating ability

So you suggest CNN or... I don't think they're at all credible.

And like that .. OP is gone.