Why didn’t you link one of those URLs, rather than whatever that epic news site is? The initial link you posted screams “this isn’t a legitimate source”.
Because those urls are right on the page together. What exactly are you even complaining about here? Evidently you judge the legitimacy of a source based on page layout? 🤷
Correct. I’m not going to waste my time reading articles on a website that has a bunch of telltale signs of having the end game of spreading disinformation.
So, a site linking to primary reputable sources has the end game of spreading disinformation. That’s a totally reasonable statement a rational person would make.
Yeah, a 10 day old website with almost zero online fingerprints, built using the most generic layout that seems to just repost news from other sources… that doesn’t look shady at all, any reasonable person would assume it’s a totally reliable source of information.
You could have just posted the link to the actual sources. Digging your heels in and attacking me for calling that out isn’t making you look any better.
So your complaints are that a site having legitimate information with primary sources is… new and has a bad layout. And you’re accusing me of digging in my heels while making a clown of yourself here?
Maybe follow your own advice. The only criticisms you’ve made of the site is that it’s new and you don’t like the layout. You did not make any substantial criticisms of the actual content. The fact that you don’t see what an utter clown you are is hilarious.
The site is a low effort Wordpress instance pretending to be a news website (very common in disinformation)
The site is roughly 10 days old (young instances are also common in disinformation websites)
There is no article author, for a “news” website… wow, what journalistic integrity. (Also common in disinfo websites)
The only online footprint that exists for the website is is a few very new social media accounts that use the same name (also, very common in disinfo websites).
It’s not “one thing”, it’s a combination of multiple things that add pile up to make the site look shady.
Now, I’ll assume you’re working with troglodyte levels of internet literacy and won’t immediately assume your actual goal is trying to spread questionable news sources. But to be honest, your replies make it challenging to give you the benefit of the doubt. Because I’m assuming you made a poor judgement call and a shared shady site in a science community, I’d like to take this time to recommend you swing by the local community college and take an introduction to internet course, maybe swing by a high school and sit in on a media literacy class.
If you’re going to try and straw man and attempt to insult, please do it with more creativity. If you won’t post credible links, at least have some originality in your comments.
But please, take those internet and media literacy courses before you try regurgitating more insults you’ve read online. If I’m going to argue with you I would like you to at least have a baseline for what a questionable “news” website looks like. Frankly I don’t have the energy to teach you something you should have learned in grade 9.
Why didn’t you link one of those URLs, rather than whatever that epic news site is? The initial link you posted screams “this isn’t a legitimate source”.
Because those urls are right on the page together. What exactly are you even complaining about here? Evidently you judge the legitimacy of a source based on page layout? 🤷
Correct. I’m not going to waste my time reading articles on a website that has a bunch of telltale signs of having the end game of spreading disinformation.
So, a site linking to primary reputable sources has the end game of spreading disinformation. That’s a totally reasonable statement a rational person would make.
Yeah, a 10 day old website with almost zero online fingerprints, built using the most generic layout that seems to just repost news from other sources… that doesn’t look shady at all, any reasonable person would assume it’s a totally reliable source of information.
You could have just posted the link to the actual sources. Digging your heels in and attacking me for calling that out isn’t making you look any better.
So your complaints are that a site having legitimate information with primary sources is… new and has a bad layout. And you’re accusing me of digging in my heels while making a clown of yourself here?
That was a lame attempt at straw man. Go read my comments again, read slower this time.
Maybe follow your own advice. The only criticisms you’ve made of the site is that it’s new and you don’t like the layout. You did not make any substantial criticisms of the actual content. The fact that you don’t see what an utter clown you are is hilarious.
Now, I’ll assume you’re working with troglodyte levels of internet literacy and won’t immediately assume your actual goal is trying to spread questionable news sources. But to be honest, your replies make it challenging to give you the benefit of the doubt. Because I’m assuming you made a poor judgement call and a shared shady site in a science community, I’d like to take this time to recommend you swing by the local community college and take an introduction to internet course, maybe swing by a high school and sit in on a media literacy class.
If you’re going to try and straw man and attempt to insult, please do it with more creativity. If you won’t post credible links, at least have some originality in your comments.
But please, take those internet and media literacy courses before you try regurgitating more insults you’ve read online. If I’m going to argue with you I would like you to at least have a baseline for what a questionable “news” website looks like. Frankly I don’t have the energy to teach you something you should have learned in grade 9.