in the previous bread , an anon claimed that zerohedge is not a good source of information. To support this claim, this anon offered as “evidence” the fact that zero hedge has linked to articles associated with groups that are generally unliked. I do not pretend to know any insider information the goings on at zerohedge, but do firmly believe that the anons “evidence” used to support that claim is almost certainly entirely unfounded.
Point 1: this anon offered no links to the articles in question. Had he done so, we might have easily checked for ourselves whether or not anything nefarious is going on in those articles. This is at best lazy, and at worst deliberately misleading.
Point 2: by way of example, we might take one particular article that would have shown up on such a list. Consider the following article:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-10/major-israeli-daily-our-government-arming-neo-nazis-ukraine
This article discusses the recent revelations that Israel is funding weapons used by the (neo nazi) Ukrainian regime. In that article , the author notes that this is shocking, and what is even more shocking, is that this is being reported upon and verified independently by Israeli press, where it is generating a MASSIVE scandal in Israel. To back up his claim, he cites an Israeli newspaper in which the reader can now go and verify that yes, Israel is indeed funding a neo nazi regime. Obviously, this article contains a link to an Israeli newspaper.
The anon from the previous bread used the appearance of a hyperlink, in this type of context , as evidence that zerohedge was not a credible or trustworthy source . This is not a fair or valid argument, and it does not lend any support or provide any evidence at all )either for OR against) the hypothesis zerohedge is not credible. To summarize ,
>anon makes claim.
>Anon provides information to support claim. >Information does not support claim.
>Anon has made an unfounded claim.
Keep on your toes ya’ll.