• Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • XbSuper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        1 year 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Naw, I’m more interested in the how.

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

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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.