Why can't we just have a third party vetting service for true content, where the content is labeled with a serial number and URL, and I can just look it up on the third party service's site to confirm it's validity (and if the content has no serial number watermarked on it, then I just ignore it as false)???
This joint investigation by Bellingcat, Der Spiegel, The Insider and La Repubblica, was conducted over the course of 10 months.
If don't trust Bellingcat and you want to dig further you contact Der Spiegel, et al, to see if they know anything about this. And follow up any other sources they mention. Of course, where do you stop? The more sources you check the harder it is to claim that each source is part of a wider conspiracy, but it's hard work. Given the track record of Bellingcat I'm inclined to believe they know what they are doing, but that's just my personal level of paranoia. YMMV.
> third party vetting service
You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer.
"You left out the "trustable" adjective, and that's the killer."
Agreed. If there were a simple 3rd party vetting service that currenlty trusted purveyor's of news used religiously, that in and of itself would allow me to trust said third party validator for other, perhaps non-mainstrem channels, and not trust thos who didn't use the 3rd party validator.
I'm just saying - there's a high demand for trust. One could argue that the currency of the forseable future is indeed "trust".
