> there's a substantial political movement that will say or do anything for victory Well, how can one verify if something is correct or not if there is no link

> there's a substantial political movement that will say or do anything for victory Well, how can one verify if something is correct or not if there is no link to sources? Without sources, there is no way. With the sources, one can verify the sources, if needed in depth (recursively). (Except if one side controls all the sources, as done in the book 1984. But in the western society, we are not in this position yet, luckily.) Neural networks have relatively stable connections (neurons know only neighbours, and assign thrust / weight to each other). That is a "gossip". But as a society, we want a faster way. But faster ways (radio, TV, Twitter, Facebook... this site here) are more dangerous, so we need the sources. > if you can get someone to argue over the stuff, you've just become ONE SIDE of a both-sides narrative And you steal other peoples times. > They're giving enough 'tells' that they're operating from sort of a post-reality position For you, yes. But for others, it might not be obvious. So calling out "where are the sources", and then seeing there are no reliable sources, might help those others.