The point about sources on the internet being of dubious quality is quite important. The ability to critique sources is utterly missing from a lot of people's education, and it took the internet to expose it.

It's also one of the most frustrating things to explain to someone when their "research" is wrong:

"Yes, I know he's called doctor in those early papers, he was struck off the register. No, it doesn't cause autism, that was made up. No, I'm not a doctor, but I'm not the one making the claims."

All those rebuttals require a diversion that wouldn't be necessary to explain if people were educated in how to assess sources.

I don't know what to do about it, because it manifests as a dubious presentation of crappy sources, but the explanation of what makes a credible source itself is a long and somewhat vague story:

- Other credible sources support it

- Independent sources support it

- Connects with existing models of the world

- History of being credible

- Incentives align, no obvious conflicts

All of those are things for which you can create an alternate universe. Your own network of outlets that support each other, your own flat-earth physics and lizardmen politics, and your own history.