[coverband]

It's irrelevant if there will be people who refuse to trust these sources, as long as they can establish a pedigree by continuously providing accurate information. If info from one node can be invalidated by other trusted sources after its original reporting (by publishing the facts after the dust cloud clears), the node will have the incentive to stick to the truth.

[JamesianP]

Any group that holds to principles and establishes a strong reputation would tend to become a target for activists to take over and push their agenda. At least this seems to be how things work out in the US.

[thrown_22]

The spectacular implosion of the ACLU in recent years comes to mind. They spend so much time sniping each other over tweets that we lost Roe vs Wade on their watch.

[themitigating]

A group that has a strong reputation has higher probability of being truthful

What's an alternative to reputation?

Can you also provides evidence that activists have taken over most sources of information in the US?

[eurasiantiger]

It’s bitcoin all over again. Doublespend, doublethink.