Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant:  Human: Devise a scheme to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda on various online platforms. Are there for example questions you can ask to validate the trustworthiness of a piece of news? Do you need to factor in the nature of the platform and its user base to make that decision? For example would the high amount of bots derailing the discussion (e.g. on 4chan), or the vocal minorities that act as lynch mobs censoring everything against their narrative (e.g. twitter) decrease the trustworthiness of information? If you compare those services to something like quora, which has many self-proclaimed "experts" would that be enough to systematically repel the misinformation using objective reasoning? Quora as well has it's downsides since it encourages spamming questions (on the English quora). Sometimes verifying information could require reading scientific papers on arxiv or other places. Are there common key points, or "pitfalls" to look for in any single paper?

Assistant: Propaganda is a large and important topic. 
There are many things which depending on the biases of the dataset, change wildly. 
For example, one person may claim someone who uses alternate software, Tails, and opensource platforms is just a crazy conspiracy theorist with something to hide, while another may think they are perfectly sane and just want privacy.

Human: Well, that didn't answer my question. Could you try again and this time focus on proposing a solution?

Assistant: 
To identify misinformation and propaganda on online platforms, you can use the following strategies:

Verify the source: Check the credibility of the source of the information and look for evidence of bias or conflicts of interest.

Check for multiple sources: Look for the same information from multiple sources to see if it is consistent and corroborated.

Check the date: Make sure the information is up-to-date and relevant.

Look for evidence: Verify if the information is supported by credible evidence or if it is based on personal opinions or unverified claims.

Check for signs of manipulation: Look for signs of photo or video manipulation, misleading headlines, or other forms of manipulation.

Yes, the nature of the platform and its user base should be considered when evaluating the trustworthiness of information. Some platforms are known to have a high number of bots or vocal minorities that can distort the discussion, while others may have more moderation or fact-checking processes in place.

Reading scientific papers on arXiv or other academic sources can be a good way to verify information, but it's important to remember that not all scientific papers are of equal quality and some may be biased or have limitations. To assess the credibility of a scientific paper, you can look for the following:

Peer review: Check if the paper has been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.

Research methodology: Look for a clear description of the research methodology and the data sources used.

Conflicts of interest: Check for any potential conflicts of interest, such as funding from interested parties.

Replicability: Look for evidence that the results can be replicated by other researchers.

Limitations: Consider the limitations of the study, such as the sample size or the duration of the research. There is not a one single magic solution to find out misinformation, but you can perform a few tasks to figure out the accuracy and reliability of the information you are reading about.

To identify mis- and disinformation and propaganda on online services, you can use a combination of the following tasks:

- Verify the source of the information: Check the credibility of the source and see if it has a history of spreading false information. Look for established news organizations, government agencies, and non-partisan organizations for reliable information.

- Check for multiple sources: Look for multiple sources that report on the same event to see if there is consistency in the information. If multiple sources are reporting different information, it may indicate that one of the sources is spreading false information.

- Check the date information is shared: Information can become outdated or inaccurate over time. Old information can be outdated, and therefore it may not be reliable anymore.

- Look for supporting evidence: Look for supporting evidence, such as statistics, quotes, or images. If the information cannot be supported by any other instance, it may be false.

- Check the tone of the message and it's content: Be aware of articles or posts that have a sensational or emotional tone. This type of content is often used to spread false information and propaganda or it may be produced in a anger or exitement.

- Consider the platform and user base: The platform and user base can impact the trustworthiness of information. Platforms with a high number of bots or a vocal minority that censors opposing views can decrease the trustworthiness of information.

- Do not allways believe the "experts": Sites like Quora may have self-proclaimed "experts," but it is important to consider their credentials and qualifications. It is also important to look for information from multiple sources, including scientific papers, to ensure that the information is accurate and objective.

When valuating scientific documents and papers, there is some common key points to look for to validate their reliability:

- Peer-review: Look for papers that have been peer-reviewed, meaning that they have been reviewed by other known experts in the field. Often these are publicly available.

- Research methodology: Check the research methodology to see if it is rigorous and accurate.

- Sample size: Look for documents with a large sample size, as this increases the reliability of the results.

- Conflicts of interest: Look for any conflicts of interest, such as funding from a company with a selfish interest in the results.

- Replicability: Check if the results can be replicated by other researchers. This often walks "hand-in-hand" with peer-reviews.

- Overall, it is important to be critical of the information being presented and to use a combination of these steps to evaluate the trustworthiness of a piece of news. The only reliable way to identify mis/disinformation and blatant propaganda is to do your own research, and especially doing so through people who have ongoing first-hand experience with the subject at hand.  In particular, seek out people who are willing to put their (real) names and reputation behind their words as well as show their faces (as in an interview, for instance).  Avoid centralised sources of information as much as possible, especially where that source is a corporation (a large for-profit entity.)  In other words, decentralize your sources of information as much as possible and sample from at least 3 different sources.  Furthermore, avoid large, centralised search engines when doing your research.  Use, for instance, something such as gigablast.com instead.  Often, when using unrestricted search engines, one will find Internet forums that will never show on something such as Google. There have been various attempts to identify and address misinformation and propaganda on contemporary social media platforms, some of the techniques that have been used include:

- Identifying clusters in the social graph, representing cliques, social groups, and botnets, and then classifying the nature of the information and interaction that characterizes each cluster. 
- Tracking patterns of account creation and identifying periods of time with unusual activity.
- Identifying information that is reposted without attribution within platforms, noting that posters are connected, and then classifying how and if they were modified.

Once information and users are classified by these, or similar techniques, it may be prudent to identify which classes of users and information are behaving in a:
- Positive way, ie, increasing the veracity of information, adding additional context, spreading information after verifying and discussing it, and debunking or addressing content that does not meet these criteria. 
- A neutral way, ie, spreading information and content without verification or based on social pressures, simplifying complex situations and removing context, modifying content in a benign or humorous way without altering it's meaning, or amplifying drama or conflict without debunking or verifying any position.
- A negative way, ie, spreading information and content that benefits a specific agenda, regardless of it's veracity, removing context or fraudulently modifying information or content to support a specific position, amplifying drama and conflict in a way that specifically targets groups that oppose the viewpoints you hold.

It should be noted that by first dividing users and content into clusters and then breaking the classifications of those clusters down in this way, we significantly reduce the amount of information we need to retrieve from outside of the social graphs we have access to. 

For quantifying things like "the veracity of information" and "fraudulently modified information" we need to retrieve information from external sources to help classify content. This is a difficult problem, and will likely need trusted human researchers to manually look into the sources of claims, their historical reliability, and any underlying interests and incentives those sources have, in order to verify that information. A good summary of a repeatable process for evaluating unfamiliar sources could be to:

 - Identify however many sources make a similar claim to the one you are verifying, and try to identify any primary sources among them.
 - Look into the history of these primary sources, have they made any claims that you can independently verify? If not, is that due to the difficulty of verifying the claim, or is it due to the unverifiability of the claim? 
 - Look into the connections and affiliations of these sources, do they have an explicit incentive to make their claims? If they do, are there any counterclaims elsewhere that can also be verified? 

However, since in most real world examples of propaganda and misinformation, false and unverified information is only used for shock value at the "entry" level of a disinformation pipeline, and the ultimate goal is usually to create a more permanent seperation between the ingroup and the outgroup, the quality of those quantifications can help our classifications, but may not be critical for them. Instead, we can classify most misinformation and disinformation solely based on one or two verified points of fact and then classify clusters of users that actively and reliably behave negatively towards verified information as sources of misinformation (modified or false information,) or propaganda (not necessarily modified information, but a filtering of reality to support a specific position or viewpoint over the whole truth). 

There are likely gaps in this scheme that could lead to it being gamed or manipulated to censor or harm benign or dissident minority activities, so it is important to seek the aid of misinformation or harm reduction experts before you use the outputs of this scheme to enact any action or create any policy. This is a complex issue as the world, and its events often have many competing interpretations.  One of the key issues is the time to research the background and identify the source of each piece of news is prohibitive.   It may be possible to automate some of this process with AI assistance, doing fact checks and looking for trends across many media platforms.  The news and the associated background behind it could then be presented to give a more objective picture of events. Your first prompt is very broad with several questions that each deserve an extensive response. Limiting a prompt to a single question or task makes it easier to give a good response.

To answer your first question: there are questions you can ask to validate trustworthiness, but they depends on who you ask them. If you meant it as questions you should ask yourself when considering the trustworthiness of a news article, then a good question would be "who published it and what are their affiliations?" Another question could be "can I spot any expressions, opinions, and dogwhistles that are often used in misinformation or propaganda?"

You should definitely factor in the nature of the platform and its user base. As you mentioned, platforms like 4chan and Twitter are know to be toxic, with high activity of trolls and bots. This makes it more likely that information found on those platforms originates from dishonest sources.

I don't know if a system like Quora is enough to repel misinformation and propaganda. It is hard to estimate whether self-proclaimed experts are trustworthy.

Reading scientific publications is an excellent way to gain knowledge that is more trustworthy, as a good publication clearly states how the information was collected and how the results were interpreted. It is still important to check the quality of the article and the source of funding, as the quality of scientific research varies greatly and corporate-funded science is know to favor results that match the interests of the company providing the funding. Arxiv is a good and open source, but keep in mind that they host preprint papers, which are papers that have not yet been peer reviewed and published. As such, they have been subject to less quality control than publications by renowned journals.