> Confronted with different ideas about what is health and your response is to question the reputation of the site?
This should be your first instinct any time you read anything online. Most websites are garbage, pushing sensational "new" ideas to get clicks. If you don't immediately think critically about what you're reading (and part of that is considering reputation), you'll either fall for confirmation bias or you'll be tossed about with each new thing that trends in TikTok.
Haha. No. The source of the information never matters. The content is all that matters. Alas the population has been trained not to think for them self but be told what ideas are good or bad based off who said them. This idiotic thinking runs rapid through out the world causing havoc.
I don't have the knowledge, equipment, skill or time to verify the content of every piece of information I come across so I rely on reputable sources who i trust to verify it for me.
Is this infallible? no. Is it more reliable than me making a judgement based on nothing but my own biases? yes.
> I don't have the knowledge, equipment, skill or time to verify the content of every piece of information I come across so I rely on reputable sources who i trust to verify it for me.
Then pointing out the source is not to your standard is moot. This is a conversation, where opinions and conversations can be had out side in the views or credibility of the source which posted it.
If we were merely to consider the source then hacker news might as well be dig , but with a few “trusted” sources like what cnn?
Why do t you just read the article and make your own decisions based off the information provided.
The most reputable sites get stuff wrong all the time, so even the least reputable can probably get some things right sometimes.
The requirement for infromation to be valued based on who said it vs what is being said will be the downfall of society.