I follow Bitcoin.com News. Despite it's name, it actually promotes Bitcoin Cash. They consider it to be, in many ways, the "one true Bitcoin." By that, it follows Satoshi Nakamoto's vision to a T. The problem is they're two halves of the same coin - quite literally if you take their name into account. It solves one problem but overlooks another.
I praise Bitcoin Cash's vision of treating the cryptocurrency as a money, rather than an investment. Cash's goals was to increase the block size limit in order to allow for more transactions, as oppose to moving microtransactions to another chain. Both methods have their pros and cons but I kinda like Cash's approach. That being said, Cash still has a limited supply so it may wind up becoming just like Bitcoin in the long run.
Opposing factions sparked in the wake of the fork that go on within either community daily. I see it a lot on Bitcoin.com. This sometimes leads to amusing childish banter. I find it all rather silly, though I can understand why both sides would be so protective since both make legit arguments.
But all of this stuff that will likely subside in the near future or continue until one or both networks collapse. I feel as the latter is inevitable, due to the constant increase in difficulty requiring even more power. It isn't sustainable. Both sides would disagree with my argument. Saying that benefits of the system being secure by mining outweighs the power consumption. But then this leads us right back to profits over people and gets at the heart of why Bitcoin was created in the first place: to get away from the big banks.
Now, I wouldn't be surprised if anyone here comes out and points at me for my affinity towards Monero. It's true that I side with it over Bitcoin and many of it's derivatives. I'll admit I don't know where it's future will head but the fact remains that it's network, although not perfect, is far more greener than Bitcoin's.