#1 ·
I’ve been chewing on something lately regarding how we handle sources here—specifically how the mods deal with them... because, honestly, I’ve lost count of how many times I've seen political threads get nuked just because someone linked to sites like CNN, Fox News, or similar outlets, or even worse, had their entire post wiped for citing them as a primary source. It seems like whenever the topic shifts to immigration, the hammer comes down hard on anyone pulling info from those sketchy, bottom-of-the-barrel websites that end up being totally wrong anyway.
So, what’s the official word from the mod team on sites like Breitbart, InfoWars, or those other fringe bloggy types? Are they considered legitimate sources in this community, or are they officially lumped into that whole "fake news" category everyone loves to throw around these days? I’m asking because there’s this one guy in a politics thread who keeps and keeps citing these exact kinds of sites, and it makes me wonder—what’s the actual stance here? Can the stuff found on a site like that actually be used as a solid, verified argument in a debate, or is it all just noise?
Thanks.
So, what’s the official word from the mod team on sites like Breitbart, InfoWars, or those other fringe bloggy types? Are they considered legitimate sources in this community, or are they officially lumped into that whole "fake news" category everyone loves to throw around these days? I’m asking because there’s this one guy in a politics thread who keeps and keeps citing these exact kinds of sites, and it makes me wonder—what’s the actual stance here? Can the stuff found on a site like that actually be used as a solid, verified argument in a debate, or is it all just noise?
Thanks.