I'm not sure if it's an entirely dangerous fallacy. The internet is packed with conspiracy theories and crackpot ideas, and one of the filters that I'd imagine

I'm not sure if it's an entirely dangerous fallacy. The internet is packed with conspiracy theories and crackpot ideas, and one of the filters that I'd imagine most people develop over time is to try and understand the source of what they're reading. Mainstream news outlets, or fairly well renowned websites, have a well understood bias (I would expect to see arguments for social welfare on the guardian, less so on the telegraph) and the advantages of widespread scrutiny (which acts as a limiter for entirely non-factual stuff). This site has neither. In fact, the only metric that I have to determine whether to believe anything I read in the article is the source. Given that it's clearly a single topic advocacy site, I think not judging it by its domain name would be a mistake.