The downside of that is the presence of misinformation on the web. It doesn’t matter if the misinformation is unintentional or purposeful. It still calls the integrity of the medium into question. News sources don’t sell facts, they sell trust. Everyone has facts. What matters is whether the readers believe the speaker. Although modern journalism is much better than the stuff of old, it too often lets agenda politics interfere with reporting.
I often think about printing a small, weekly publication that examines issues and events without inserting the editor’s politics into every story. But even if I could do that, the market would be very small.
Many of those skulls full of liberal mush, who are no longer fit to participate in vigorous discussion, and who are past the age of the teenagers who "grew up with it", can be turned off the internet by the drive by media decrying the abundance of misinformation thereon.
But the rest of us, including most of the young ones, and most of those who aren't yet brain dead, trust something on the internet, some particular sites or groups of people that makes sense to us.
We vary in how much we venture out into the "rest of" the internet and make sense of it; but that's a sign of a healthy diversity, and of the varied and limited resources we each bring to this discussion.
The alternative, some enforcement of "scientific web posting", on the internet would be the death knell of the burst of freedom that the internet has introduced.