3 ms·

>It’s valuable because you can compare what the media reports to what was posted on 4chan and look for discrepancies. Okay but how do you verify the validity o

• LyndsySimon 7y ago
  You don't. 4chan isn't "valid", it's just another data source. I assume everything posted there is not only false, but a lie specifically crafted by someone very intelligent to mislead me. That said, when someone posts on 4chan that an event has occurred before news of that event has broken elsewhere, it's reasonable to compare the two. If the 4chan version is largely consistent but includes a couple of details that conflict with the "official" version, then I take that as an indication that maybe something was misreported. It would be folly to assume that the 4chan version was correct, even with the supporting evidence of it being first to break. Most of those "discrepancies" are just that, and I don't believe are intentional misinformation. Consider a topic for which you're an expert. Any topic. Now look at media coverage of that topic - is it accurate? Of course not. Details are usually wrong, terms and concepts are used inappropriately, and sometimes an article's entire premise is absurd. It makes sense to me that if reporting is that bad for the things I know well enough to know it's bad, it's likely that bad for everything else; I just often don't know enough about the topic to realize it.