• @Mango
    link
    English
    -327 months ago

    A link is just pointing at someone else saying it. What makes someone else a better source?

    • XbSuper
      link
      English
      267 months ago

      Their journalistic integrity. You are no one, therefore your word carries no weight. Link sources, or don’t expect people to believe you.

      • @Mango
        link
        English
        -167 months ago

        Oh boy, calling someone a nobody and whining about integrity in the same breath! Literally everyone is just somebody. Believe them based on evidence rather than your simple minded stylistic impressions. Putting on a lab coat doesn’t add any more credibility than putting on a bath robe.

        • @interceder270
          link
          English
          8
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I’m not going to say you’re wrong.

          But believing something is true just because you read it from some random commenter on the internet isn’t really smart.

          It’s smart to ask them where they’re getting their information.

          • @Mango
            link
            English
            -27 months ago

            Naw, I’m more interested in the how.

            When it comes to believing, I don’t believe in it.

    • Lemminary
      link
      English
      37 months ago

      What makes someone else a better source?

      They have a history of adhering to facts, so they’ve built up a good reputation.

      You can look them up on mediabiasfactcheck.com and other independent fact checkers like Snopes to see how much of a reliable source they are.

      • @Mango
        link
        English
        -127 months ago

        Oh boy here we go.

        The best lies have truths sprinkled around them.

        Snopes got snoped. Snopes is actually terrible. I’m surprised to see their old reputation is still holding out with some people.

        Nobody is a good source. Material needs to stand on it’s own. Everyone has a camera, but only well established sources have high quality photo manipulation.

        • Lemminary
          link
          English
          3
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          The best lies have truths sprinkled around them.

          Lies as in deception and not human error? If I’m reading that right, it sounds like there may be some trust issues on your part but I’ll let you elaborate.

          Snopes got snoped. Snopes is actually terrible.

          Did they? By who? Can you… *ahem*… provide a link? Because that at face value sounds like you’re poisoning the well. You keep casting wide generalizations without backing them up. Sure, I could look it up, but I want your sources specifically for various reasons.

          And I’m just gonna say that of course every source has a degree of accuracy to them because the world isn’t black and white, which is the reason why reliability is a spectrum.

          Nobody is a good source.

          I’m sorry but it’s screaming trust issues again but harder.

          Material needs to stand on it’s own.

          Can you elaborate? Because I’m also getting weird vibes from this one.

          only well established sources have high quality photo manipulation

          This is simply not true, not in the world of AI and not in the world of Photoshop. If you can’t convincingly manipulate a photo using free tools and/or pirated software, then it’s a skill issue. See here for more details.

          • @Mango
            link
            English
            -17 months ago

            Why do you think I should just trust? I can’t go more than a few seconds in a day without someone trying to sell me some bullshit. I don’t have a trust issue. I have a distrust feature.

            You want me to give you my exact source where I learned this information years ago? Why would I bother cataloging that shit? I can’t even keep the world from stealing everything I’ve ever worked for. Do you think I’m just gonna look it up on the spot to appease your little act when my whole point is to figure shit out myself?

            Well established sources can hire skill with all their money they make with sensationalized nonsense. I can’t just pick that shit up. I gotta spend 8 hours a day making the land owners some money and after that I’m fond of enjoying myself.

            • Lemminary
              link
              English
              0
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I’m not saying you should “just trust” but that you have an issue with trust that’s getting in the way of a healthy skepticism and exercising critical thinking. I’m all for distrusting the internet but you can’t just raze it all and call everything lies. Especially when you then turn around and spread hearsay.

              You want me to give you my exact source where I learned this information years ago?

              No, I want you to look it up in less than a minute. That’s less than half the time it took you to write your comment. It serves many purposes like:

              • Proving it to yourself as much as proving it to me
              • See how skeptic or gullible you may be by the type of source you do trust
              • Make sure we’re on the same page
              • Sticking to facts instead of relying on memories

              You’re saying you don’t want to participate, so why should I trust you at all? Because In less than 30 seconds I found this:

              We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to an investigation that indicates a co-founding editor engaged in plagiarism. The plagiarism was not related to Fact-Checks and they remain credible for fact-checking.

              Full story here.

              Two highly reliable sources mean they’re reasonably trustworthy, and way more trustworthy than you are, random chatter. And it turns out that what you remember from many years ago is quite different from reality.

              So if you don’t want to participate in “a little act” that’s fine, but at least don’t spread false claims. After all, we do live in a society.

              • @Mango
                link
                English
                17 months ago

                The only issue you have with my trust is that I do not trust you and what you think are the cheat codes for belief.

                Two highly reliable sources mean they probably have aligned goals.

                I’m not spreading claims. I’m showing people how they don’t have to believe under pressure.

                • Lemminary
                  link
                  English
                  07 months ago

                  These aren’t cheatcodes. Maybe they’re shortcuts for like degrees of certainty with low margins of error, sure. But do you think I suspend my own critical thinking immediately when I read them? I’m aware that that specific piece of info could be faulty. Do you really think people are this naive? lol

                  Two reliable sources that coincide with the source means they’re being truthful. It’s weird that you dismiss them without good reason at all.

                  See how your own distrust colors your perception here? Could there be collusion? Sure, but it’s highly unlikely but you’re almost certain. Why? And besides, you’re foregoing so much more, ironically risking the spread of even more misinformation on the internet that you already distrust for the sake of an ideal. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. lol

                  Like I said, I’m not denying that there could be collusion–and even drifting ideals or whatever–but I’d be more concerned about whatever you have going on if I were you. There is such a thing as objective reality, after all.

                  I’m not spreading claims

                  You literally just spread misinformation based on your own faulty memory and I caught you red-handed. How can you even deny this. I won’t convince you that what you’re doing is questionable or that your reasoning is faulty, but at least stop doing the very thing you’re complaining about.