Sharing a link to an article as "proof" isn't proof if the article just says its proof

Some of these claims aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.

Usually a university team or company will be credited for a discovery in an article. If it just says “psychologists say” it’s probably nonsense generated by the publication to sell trash to the gullible.

This reminds me of a PragerU video in which a child psychologist named John Rosemond details his absolutely absurd and terrifying thoughts on how to raise your kid properly. He links several articles as sources to back up his claims, but all the articles he links were written by...John Rosemond. He cited HIMSELF as a source.

Unfortunately, the deterioration of media causes a reader to judge the politics of the media source before accepting anything written as factual. Every single story seems to be twisted to fit the prescribed narrative of that particular source.

So including a link is counter productive. It's really quite pathetic.

I find all of it pretty frustrating. this is social(ish) media; not a court case. demands of proof seem kinda silly at best.

but maybe I'm using sw entirely incorrectly.

The funny one is when they say “do your own research”. Absolute proof they have no arguments or real understanding of the subject.

So you need people to spoon feed you the proof? What's wrong with reading the article on your own? Don't you want the context so you can decided if it sounds legitimate or not?

True, yet it's disabling enough show links for the poor sobs that only posts memes and screenshots of videos as proof! 😆

I don't want to empty SW! 🙃😈

Yea with google you can find so called proof for anything you want to believe true or not.