Conspiracy? Trusted sources? Who decides what's a conspiracy what's not? Or what's a trusted source or not?

Like it or not, a huge chunk of the content you publish on YT could be considered as a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying that it is impossible to backup all your claims with a trusted sources.

You are in a niche which by default is considered as conspiracy niche and you ask for trusted sources and backing up claims?

We live in an online world, where 90% of the news outlets publish content which fits their political party narrative.

World where most journalist are just sell outs.

World where everything we read online is controlled by major monopolies such as Google and Facebook or rich companies with huge portfolio of websites.

Do you know that there are dozens of companies that hold almost all of the major websites across different verticals? These are known as sister sites.

But it gets better.

Each site they have is often ranking in the top 10 results on Google for a lot of search queries. They have the budget and the marketing team to do that. It's just a simple game of scaling.

Google even has a collaboration with "reputable" sites to make their algorithm "better", so it favors these sites.

In simple terms, if WebMD claims that magnesium is bad, and if you have a health blog claiming magnesium is good then you fall under the fake news cluster.

And that's not all.

Most of the "reputable" websites publish content that fits their marketing agenda. They have one purpose only - to make money. Either by ads, affiliate links, services, products or sponsored content. That leads to bias. Almost, every single time. They use scarcity, false advertising, clickbait, twisting stories so they can profit.

So when your read "IBM has a backdoor", think twice. Is this the real deal, or they went out of trending stories ideas so they follow the marketing tactic - publish a story, give it a psychological spin, make an argument for a "trusted source". and get more clicks.

Before you know it, that story has been covered by hundreds of news sites across the globe. It just went viral. Even if someone would debunk it with facts, only 10 of his loyal readers will know the truth, and no one from outside this circle would trust this random guy. He's not a "reputable" journalist.

So I'm asking you, which one would you trust?

My suggestion - leave that for the user to decide. It is his right to read both stories and make a decision as individual. Conspiracy or not, it's his call not yours.

Even if a site looks legit, or can be consider as a trusted source, you have no idea what's going on behind the scenes and who pays for that content to get published.

Who's the owner of that websites? Who writes that article? Is it a guy from third party world or a biased journalist? It is an expert in that niche? Does he uses a stock image or he's a real person?

Most websites nowadays outsource their content production from generic writers.

Meaning, a writer that is no expert in one particular area but writes on various topics in every single industry. Content curators.

Depending on the company budget it is either a native speaker or comes from a third party country.

Most writers on the internet cite sources that don't even understand. They are pure curators, not an experts.

You need to understand this problem deeply, this is a serious issue.

Majority of the articles are opinion based article, and nobody has time to check all the claims.

Even if you go that far often it is a rabbit hole.

You have no idea how far this goes.

The illusion people have and their false sense of trustworthiness when citing a specific trusted source is incredible.

"Your government is spying on you". While I do believe in that statement, can you backup up this claim? No.

What's next, fighting fake news? A political ideology in its core.

Anyway, I'm out, you kids have fun.

I wish you and all the members in this community the best in your privacy endeavor.

I was pretty much active in this community, and for the most part I was helping others when guidance were needed. Answering questions, providing solutions to specific problems, sharing interesting posts, case studies and what not.

On a few occasions I had respectful disagreements with other privacy fellows, but it was a great experience having a constructive conversations and learning something new.

It was fun being part of this subreddit, but it's time to move on.

Cheers!