I do not trust any fact checker or anything else. I find Infowars, Breitbart or Weekly World News as reliable as CNN, PBS or New York Times. Fact checking sites are no better than mainstream sites and have the same political biases. Below is a chart of publications that I find roughly comparable for factual information. In other words, for article important to me I find a roughly equivalent amount of true vs. false reporting. I consider mainstream sources like these to be search engines and nothing more. They are where I begin my information research. If there is not a primary source backing the article, it should be disregarded.
| Politically Left | Politically Right |
| CNN | Fox |
| Washington Post | InfoWars |
| Drudge Report | Liberty Daily Caller |
| PBS | Breitbart |
| Snopes | Gateway Pundit |
| Wikipedia | Urban Dictionary |
Gold Standard of Information
The gold standards of information sourcing are BBS’s with a lot of traffic like Reddit or 4chan. Reddit is nice because you can view some background about the avatar making the claims. However, it is too aggressively moderated, which results in under-developed discussions.
4Chan on the other hand is the Wild West. If you are easily offended, stay away. If you can handle gore, insults, racism, sexism and every other -ism then 4Chan offers the only public venue for dialectical/Socratic/Talmudic dialogue in the world. Prior to the 1980s, this type of conversation was commonplace. Now it is taboo.
What do I consider valid sources and citations?
My most favored source is a primary source. Most of the videos I am citing in my discussions of the 2020 election are primary sources. That is, first person accounts, ideally under oath, with video or photographic evidence that they took to back their claims. These people can be imprisoned or sued if they are found to be lying.
If a primary source is not possible or too difficult, then I will cite from the oppositions own sources, like one of the videos in the State Farm Arena post from Alive11. For this reason, some subjects can have a lazy source like Wikipedia, Fox or CNN if the citation is intended to prove something is common knowledge or to prove it is being misrepresented.
Finally, I give more credibility to people who testify or seem to be acting against their own interests. These are the most compelling and likely to be true. These people acted out of their conviction for justice rather to benefit in some way. Many are harassed and most risk imprisonment or lawsuits if they are shown to be lying.
The speakers I am citing give their pertinent curriculum vitae and the videos are taken by the speaker or are government sanctioned recordings. Some are legislative committee hearings, some are press release events and a few are self-recorded. All are parties to lawsuits that have not been given standing and most have not been acknowledged by the courts, bureaucracy or press. Testimony with an affidavit is considered evidence in a court of law.