<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Animats</author><text>&lt;i&gt;Each site seemed to be funneling you into a single source of truth and way of not only thinking, but FEELING about an event.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Which is a big problem. In the intelligence community, people are taught to distinguish between data items from different sources, which may indicate confirmation, and data items from the same source via different paths, which don&amp;#x27;t.</text><parent_chain><item><author>neither_color</author><text>&lt;i&gt;There’s a question as to why that fake consensus emerged. But I think the more troubling question is: How did people let the original story of what Tom Cotton even said go so badly awry? Essentially Cotton said something that was then transformed into a fake claim of a Chinese bio-attack, then the fake claim was debunked, and then the debunking was applied to the real claim with little attention paid to ongoing disagreement among researchers.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think this part of the text really sums up everything I hated about reading the news and social media in 2020. Each site seemed to be funneling you into a single source of truth and way of not only thinking, but FEELING about an event. I don&amp;#x27;t like being reminded of corporate sponsored social movements if I open facebook&amp;#x2F;google&amp;#x2F;amazon&amp;#x2F;twitter. I don&amp;#x27;t want my app reminding me to vote&amp;#x2F;get vaccinated(I did both btw) every time I open it without a way to dismiss and select &amp;#x27;I already did, stop reminding me.&amp;#x27; I don&amp;#x27;t want reddit creating a central sub-page for discussing [Current Event] within the narrow bounds of what their moderators think is acceptable. I don&amp;#x27;t like non-dismissable context text on twitter and under youtube videos that are often off topic and triggered by bad speech detection that simply take you to a link dump of regular news articles. I don&amp;#x27;t like the idea that there&amp;#x27;s an oligopoly on &amp;quot;truth&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;credible sources.&amp;quot; No amount of branding will convince me that &amp;quot;fact checkers&amp;quot; are any more objective and impartial than regular newspaper columnists; fact checkers are what editors are supposed to be. There&amp;#x27;s no academic rigor to fact checking, and the reality that so much casual skepticism on a variety of topics was suppressed and equivocated with being a flat-earther is sickening.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The media&apos;s lab leak fiasco</title><url>https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-medias-lab-leak-fiasco</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>vosper</author><text>&amp;gt; No amount of branding will convince me that &amp;quot;fact checkers&amp;quot; are any more objective and impartial than regular newspaper columnists; fact checkers are what editors are supposed to be. There&amp;#x27;s no academic rigor to fact checking&lt;p&gt;Matt Taibbi recently published an article about how the role and visibility of fact-checking has changed over recent years (the meat of this is in the second half of the article)&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;taibbi.substack.com&amp;#x2F;p&amp;#x2F;fact-checking-takes-another-beating&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;taibbi.substack.com&amp;#x2F;p&amp;#x2F;fact-checking-takes-another-be...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>neither_color</author><text>&lt;i&gt;There’s a question as to why that fake consensus emerged. But I think the more troubling question is: How did people let the original story of what Tom Cotton even said go so badly awry? Essentially Cotton said something that was then transformed into a fake claim of a Chinese bio-attack, then the fake claim was debunked, and then the debunking was applied to the real claim with little attention paid to ongoing disagreement among researchers.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;I think this part of the text really sums up everything I hated about reading the news and social media in 2020. Each site seemed to be funneling you into a single source of truth and way of not only thinking, but FEELING about an event. I don&amp;#x27;t like being reminded of corporate sponsored social movements if I open facebook&amp;#x2F;google&amp;#x2F;amazon&amp;#x2F;twitter. I don&amp;#x27;t want my app reminding me to vote&amp;#x2F;get vaccinated(I did both btw) every time I open it without a way to dismiss and select &amp;#x27;I already did, stop reminding me.&amp;#x27; I don&amp;#x27;t want reddit creating a central sub-page for discussing [Current Event] within the narrow bounds of what their moderators think is acceptable. I don&amp;#x27;t like non-dismissable context text on twitter and under youtube videos that are often off topic and triggered by bad speech detection that simply take you to a link dump of regular news articles. I don&amp;#x27;t like the idea that there&amp;#x27;s an oligopoly on &amp;quot;truth&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;credible sources.&amp;quot; No amount of branding will convince me that &amp;quot;fact checkers&amp;quot; are any more objective and impartial than regular newspaper columnists; fact checkers are what editors are supposed to be. There&amp;#x27;s no academic rigor to fact checking, and the reality that so much casual skepticism on a variety of topics was suppressed and equivocated with being a flat-earther is sickening.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The media&apos;s lab leak fiasco</title><url>https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-medias-lab-leak-fiasco</url></story>