But this one isn't so it doesn't get the benefit of the doubt based on higher quality peers.

/r/AskHistorians may be a fine place to discuss history but without sources the comments can be treated as nothing more than opinion.

Are you implying that we should just accept peer reviewed work and Reddit comments as equally valid? I don't disagree with you, peer-review is no guarantee of proof but I assign more weight to it than an upvote. Especially if I can read the work myself and investigate further sources.

Don't throw the baby away with the bathwater.

Peer reviewed publications offers the only venue for accountable reporting on complex subjects.

By definition this mean "accountability to peers" and is the only mechanism which outsiders can use to gauge the credibility of claims.

Like all things humans do that is not pure maths, it's not perfect but the best we have.