Doesn’t matter what the source is

I disagree.

I’m not saying that Mint don’t publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I’ve seen.

And if you asked on .grad or .ml, peopel will say their reporting on Russia/Ukraine is ok, too.

The fact that this publisher was funded by the Syrian, Russian and Iranian government is more then enough red flags for me to compleltey dismiss them as a source. If individual articles have merit, they'll be published somewhere else.

Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn’t.

If the only site willing to publish a specific article is a Kremlin propaganda site, you should stop and ask why.

If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.

That is some terrible logic.

Ignoring someone that has repeatedly and deliberately lied to you is common sense. They can't be trusted. But that doesn't mean that someone that has never lied to you is infallible. They could still make mistakes or start lying to you tomorrow. You should never turst blindly. They are two completely indepent scenarios.

You’re german

Enjoy that thales money

But Thales is French?

Yeah a couple hundreds of people wrote a letter. Very interesting.

Yeah, why wouldn't they?

It’s not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.

But the website that is publishing it, isn't. There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews ... doesn't mean those sources should be allowed.

If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article. Link to that instead.

By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.

There is no logic to that statement.

Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.

If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source. But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.

The community rules cleary states that opinion pieces and unreliable sources are subject to removal. You posted the epitome of an unreliable source. This is just enforcing the rules.

YDI.

I guess it was a pretty broad stroke and there is some collateral damage. I might look into this one.

No need to go overseas, almost all countries with birthright citizenship are in the Americas.

Nope. In fact, it's actually generating more work for me, because managers are commiting their shitty generated code and then we have to debug and refactor it for productiuon. It would actually save time if they just made a ticket and let us write it traditionally.

But as long as they're wasting their own time, I'm not complaining.

I could never love someone that goes to jazz festivals.

Morals, lol. Half of lemmy is tankies that unironically think the guys was great. That's one for reddit.