It doesn't look like anything to me.
> You think your source is always right and mine is wrong so don't apply your brain.
That's not what I said. Always right or wrong is nonsensical.
Truth is subtle and the narrative can connect facts that aren't connected, so there's a question of why you would risk being manipulated by a source who formally states a lack of factual integrity. If you are tempted to claim "I can decide for myself", you are missing the point...you can be manipulated despite your best efforts.
Once a source has shown to disregard basic standards of proof, there are other sources. Circle round if you find another. Shouldn't there be someone else who cites those studies outside of Tech Dirt?
> Believing every news source to be equal is the problem.
> No, that is what causes fake news to work in the first place
You restated my assertion, while saying "no", as if it's a disagreement. Not believing something is the default position (skepticism).
I feel like you're just too wound up now to be rational in an attempt to "win" something so good luck convincing someone else.
> Right, so nothing they say can possibly be true
I did not say that and that's not the point.
> This is exactly the issue that causes Fake news.
No, it is not and I don't think you understand the nature of the problem with Fake news. Believing every news source to be equal is the problem.
> You choose to believe something based on who says it
Tech Dirt has the journalistic integrity of Facebook, I don't need to "check it out" to treat it as such.
Tech Dirt is not a news outlet. Tech Dirt is a self-proclaimed rumor mill.
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk. -- Thomas Edison