zlacker

>>techno+(OP)
Grayzone is an extremely unreliable source which frequently publishes false stories with an anti-US bent [1][2]. The past discussion [3] has a WSJ link which should be preferred over this.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone

[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/06/02/grayzon...

[3]: >>44268547

>>rafram+u7
While I don’t agree with them all the time, I find this sort of critique to be unfair and often are attempting to silence alternative media and viewpoints which is a disservice to journalism

>>newscl+S8
It is an Ad hominem against the source w/o addressing the actual content of the article.

>>sitkac+8a
It did address the content of the article: it suggested a more reliable source that is saying the same thing.

Questioning the integrity of a source is not an ad adhominem argument. Saying that a conclusion is false because of the speaker would be an ad hominem.

>>epista+4c
Attacking anything other than the argument itself is fallacious. The core of tenet described in Ad Hominem is that the argument is being diminished because of who is delivering it, if it is a person, a robot, a magazine or parrot doesn't change that the argument itself is being ignored.

>>sitkac+Qc
That is absolutely untrue. One can comment on the unreliability and inappropriateness of a source without impugning the material, and that's exactly what's been done here. I don't think you are fully reading what was written.