I agree with your first sentence. Your second sentence is technically true, but misleading. Your third sentence is simply incorrect, and is at the heart of most NYT-style (i.e., hypercapitalist) invective against "doomers."

If a person doesn't take seriously that political economy and governance structures are also technologies, it's very easy to say that within the current world order a lot more could be done. It "could," in the sense that it's conceptually feasible using existing physical technologies. But most things that theoretically could be done in actual point of fact cannot be done because our governing technologies prevent it from being done and because nobody knows how to build mass movements that credibly threaten revolutionary violence fast enough to make our governing technologies pursue the "already discovered" climate solutions--which would absolutely devastate a number of existing power bases within the ordering political economic technologies of the world--as a sop against revolution.

I wrote about this a fair bit in a recent book, Panic Now? Tools for Humanizing.

It's entirely understandable that many well-meaning people think "the solutions are already here," and it's excusable that many people who have not thought seriously about governance technologies think "building political will" is some kind of "natural," i.e., non-technological process.

But it is not. And the solutions are not already here.

For whatever it's worth, my own view (detailed in the book) is not that this means nobody should focus on a whole range of political and other technological levers. Many people probably should. But it won't be enough to save the current version of the world we inhabit, the Carbon-Capitalism-Colonialism (CaCaCo) world of a very large human population collocated along lines of great complexity. It's just that some kinds of technological solutionism--even though they can't fulfill their promise of "saving the world"--are useful in creating and leaving good artifacts lying around.

To the OP question, I think r/collapse is largely a good aggregator. I use a bunch of other, smaller subs in the same way, alongside a lot of accounts on Twitter and now Bluesky, and multiple conflicting media sources for the specific items of high relevance to me.

I don't think there's any one place a person can, at this point, reasonably hope to discover "the truth" about how things are going in the world. Cobbling together lots of different infostreams, with a particular emphasis on loosely (but not necessarily evenly) balancing the well-understood material and ideological conflicts that orient these, is about the best anyone can do.

That said, a committed person absolutely could--probably not even that complicatedly--write a few algorithms to do the viewpoint weighting, use an AI agent to crawl the web and collate sources, and get an AI summary of overarching trends that links out to key items of interest. You still wouldn't have "the truth," but you could cover an awful lot of ground. Probably doing this pretty well wouldn't need a lot more compute than a dedicated server and a couple cards running one of the open source or quasi-open source LLMs, and wouldn't need all that advanced python skills.

The problem is, the second somebody who's not you or implicitly trusted by you does that, you have no special reason to believe they aren't systematically skewing their results in one or more ways that are non-obvious to you. In an information ecosystem structured above all else by justified mistrust, becoming a "trusted source" is worth impossibly much.

There's no real way out of this bind, unfortunately. For most people, the best option is either to create a private aggregator/compiler/synthesizer as described above or, more readily within reach for most, to follow the highly inefficient path of taking in lots and lots of different sorts of info and weighing each against all the rest and against some more or less self-reflexively articulated parameters for trust or mistrust. Which, obviously, is exhausting.

The good news in all this is that most people probably don't need too much high-quality, granular information, really. Once you accept that CaCaCo really is falling apart, it's useful to keep your eye on a few high-level trends but even more useful to stay attuned to the processes most likely to drive change swiftly or via intensifying cascades in locally specific ways.

After all, the point of the information is to be able to do useful things. And you can only do useful things with others who roughly share your sense of what the data is saying, overall. This is far, far easier to achieve in local ways with locally relevant information. Which is itself not just a part of why everything will in fact collapse but also a bulwark of sorts.

A group of people who focus on developing a moderately clear, locally well-specified understanding of collapse processes has a pretty good chance of setting a local agenda for adaptation that's both reality-based and pluralistically oriented toward human flourishing (as long as that group itself is so oriented, of course). I see in this tremendous grounds for hopefulness, and it shapes my own approach not only to info-gathering but, equally, to specific forms of local action.

I hope for some variant of that for all of us.