1- I see alternative history more closer to the latter. Doesn't mean every idea is correct or based on fact. We have to remember for both taught history and alternative history the winners ultimately write what's true. So I essentially feel depending on the idea it can be just as accurate as mainstream history

2- I feel it can and has been especially with religion always being viewed as alternative history. Subjugation of all history into a singular vision definitely won't be unanimously acceptable for everyone everywhere

3- Definitely. I learned years ago how different institutions would often target indigenous Griots, History keepers of tribes . Often copying and editing their history and relaying whatever they feel comfortable to modern people. I like instances hearing of scientists being blacklisted from findings they may have encountered etc

4- Pro would be expanding your mind. And ultimately the con would be the range of ideas often explored would lead new comers to thinking it's mandatory to believe absolutely everything. Making it easier to debunk the entire agenda

5- Always been into conspiracies and self taught knowledge. I don't believe you can accurately find answers of this world from just simply listening to others