>>4086916
On being careful who we follow:
First, there's more than one way to be careful. If a site is malicious, it's obvious we should stay away. That said, I've now been "warned off" a number of conservative sites that somebody thinks are dangerous because of their ideas, not because they have malware.
Second, as a digger, I need to be able to follow a wide variety of leads to track down information. Some are more trustworthy that others, and it's up to me to carefully evaluate the worth of a given data set based on past experience, the judgement of others, whether the source cited is dependable in a SPECIFIC area, and whether I can cross-verify the source. This is the essence of the scientific method as those who are trained in that method will understand.
Translation: Don't be paranoid, check it out yourself!
Third, it's indeed important to be discerning. Recently an anon innocently asked me to check out a doc that I discovered came from a satanic site (saianarchy.com), which led to another similar source (sorry don't have the name). Both felt "icky" and I said to the anon I would not follow such a source. (Even tho satanists are probably very knowledgeable about certain things, there's usually a psychic hook; not worth it.)
My conclusion: Be open but careful, don't assume before checking something out, develop discernment as informed by gut instinct.