2 ms·

I don't read the article as saying: URI == trust claims of content Rather, it is saying that: URI provides strong evidence that the content legitimately come

I don't read the article as saying: URI == trust claims of content Rather, it is saying that: URI provides strong evidence that the content legitimately comes from the named source. And more specifically: If the content does not have a URI, you should put little weight on the attribution. Evaluating the validity of the claims is always left as an exercise for the reader.

dontcarethrow2 6y ago
I didn't want to imply we automatically trust it more, but just skimming through a thread I realize that thats what usually happens. It is likely because I don't consume content in such a way (I am guilty of just reading the headline sometime and jumping to personal conclusions) but to even go through a normal thread it will feel very tiring to go and validate all claims. It sounds very lazy of me but I usually just don't trust the web in general. I don't really have anything valuable on my computer but I still get scared some site will serve me malware. So now to get through a normal discussion we will have linked sources and discussions about the sources (with more required sources ofc). When do we get to the meat of the content? I realize HNers are more capable in digging through sources, but I'd like to think the rest of the users are more lazy-scared like me, so I am going off of that experience. And ofcourse wild claims without any sources will always be ringing bells for me, I just want to hear the same amount of bells with the sourced claims as well.