What, you’re still expecting intellectual rigor and a single-minded focus on the truth here?
This place is still a welcome location to find Q-aware insights that are difficult to find collected anywhere else.
But damn, there also appears no end to fake news and unsourced, excitable pablum that is also tolerated, even encouraged, here. It’s gratuitously discrediting, and absolutely unnecessary - simple standards for reliability and readability would go miles to making this place somewhere we could confidently send people looking for more information on Q, rather than a resource that will be quickly abandoned as someone new finds streams of wild tangentially-related conspiracy and just plain and obvious falsehoods.
Sigh.
(But in all seriousness, thank you for asking for a source here. I had the same question, as no, I don’t think an image posted by “Kat Hooker” on Gab is a trustworthy source… especially when it is accompanied by a “solution” that also appears to be plainly false.)
Maybe flare usage would be helpful with this kind of thing. I understand how people get excited sometimes and jump on a bit of info that seems plausible enough without verifying and I also appreciate that so many previously trusted sources have turned out to be the biggest peddlers of disinformation in the world. But, at least, specific to this instance, surely, there might have been a press release directly from Apple, even a two sentence soundbyte from a spokesperson confirming if they were removing a cross-platform app with tens of millions of users. So, I don't know exactly how one might implement flare differentiation between Speculative and Factual, especially, when including Q theorizing, but it doesn't seem impossible.
Source?!? 🤷♂️
What, you’re still expecting intellectual rigor and a single-minded focus on the truth here?
This place is still a welcome location to find Q-aware insights that are difficult to find collected anywhere else.
But damn, there also appears no end to fake news and unsourced, excitable pablum that is also tolerated, even encouraged, here. It’s gratuitously discrediting, and absolutely unnecessary - simple standards for reliability and readability would go miles to making this place somewhere we could confidently send people looking for more information on Q, rather than a resource that will be quickly abandoned as someone new finds streams of wild tangentially-related conspiracy and just plain and obvious falsehoods.
Sigh.
(But in all seriousness, thank you for asking for a source here. I had the same question, as no, I don’t think an image posted by “Kat Hooker” on Gab is a trustworthy source… especially when it is accompanied by a “solution” that also appears to be plainly false.)
Maybe flare usage would be helpful with this kind of thing. I understand how people get excited sometimes and jump on a bit of info that seems plausible enough without verifying and I also appreciate that so many previously trusted sources have turned out to be the biggest peddlers of disinformation in the world. But, at least, specific to this instance, surely, there might have been a press release directly from Apple, even a two sentence soundbyte from a spokesperson confirming if they were removing a cross-platform app with tens of millions of users. So, I don't know exactly how one might implement flare differentiation between Speculative and Factual, especially, when including Q theorizing, but it doesn't seem impossible.