<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>dntrkv</author><text>On the one hand we have a reputable media company reporting quotes from reputable sources, and on the other we have WikiLeaks (with a very well documented agenda) claiming the exact opposite from an anonymous source.&lt;p&gt;The New York Times and The State Department are both putting their reputation (however much that means to you) on the line with their quotes, whereas WikiLeaks and its anonymous source, aren&amp;#x27;t putting anything on the line since a large part of their business model depends on making claims that can only be proven in their favor, but never in reverse.&lt;p&gt;Example, this claim about who is responsible for cutting Assange&amp;#x27;s internet access. Let&amp;#x27;s say the US did not cut his internet. There is absolutely nothing The State Department can say to make WikiLeaks supporters believe them. Whereas, anything WikiLeaks says about the US government will be eaten up by their supporters since the only people that can provide evidence to the contrary, WikiLeaks supporters don&amp;#x27;t trust. It&amp;#x27;s the same approach taken by Alex Jones (They want to take your guns, they want to put you in fema camps, etc...), Trump (A lot of people are saying...)&lt;p&gt;Oh and btw, I&amp;#x27;m not saying you should just blindly believe what the government tells you, but until any actual evidence is provided to support another explanation, there is no reason to assume it is true.&lt;p&gt;Bonus hypocritical Trump tweet:
&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;realdonaldtrump&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;781838706030313472&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;realdonaldtrump&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;78183870603031347...&lt;/a&gt;</text><parent_chain><item><author>thingexplainer</author><text>This isn&amp;#x27;t a very interesting criticism. If WikiLeaks says an anonymous source told them something that is a.) completely believable and b.) isn&amp;#x27;t what a onymous source would be able to say, I see no reason to doubt them. I don&amp;#x27;t have an extraordinarily high confidence in a claim based on an anonymous witness alone, but journalists (lets squint hard enough to still call Assange a journalist for a moment) do this all the time.&lt;p&gt;Do you have other evidence to bring to the table? Do you have reason to doubt a.) or b.)?</text></item><item><author>dntrkv</author><text>&lt;i&gt;Multiple US sources say Assange is pulling a PR stunt.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Multiple US sources say Trump is the anti christ.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Multiple US sources say Assange is a false flag placed by the Reptilians.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wow, this is easy!</text></item><item><author>hammock</author><text>Wikileaks: Multiple US sources tell us John Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs during FARC peace negotiations.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;wikileaks&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;788369924175441920&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;wikileaks&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;788369924175441920&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says It Cut His Internet</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/world/europe/julian-assange-embassy.html?partner=IFTTT&amp;_r=1</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>Berobero</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t know that there&amp;#x27;s a reason to specifically doubt a or b, but in contrast to their other major (and known valid) leaks, this one is much more tied to their organizational interests, so there&amp;#x27;s that much more reason to be healthily skeptical of it.</text><parent_chain><item><author>thingexplainer</author><text>This isn&amp;#x27;t a very interesting criticism. If WikiLeaks says an anonymous source told them something that is a.) completely believable and b.) isn&amp;#x27;t what a onymous source would be able to say, I see no reason to doubt them. I don&amp;#x27;t have an extraordinarily high confidence in a claim based on an anonymous witness alone, but journalists (lets squint hard enough to still call Assange a journalist for a moment) do this all the time.&lt;p&gt;Do you have other evidence to bring to the table? Do you have reason to doubt a.) or b.)?</text></item><item><author>dntrkv</author><text>&lt;i&gt;Multiple US sources say Assange is pulling a PR stunt.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Multiple US sources say Trump is the anti christ.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Multiple US sources say Assange is a false flag placed by the Reptilians.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wow, this is easy!</text></item><item><author>hammock</author><text>Wikileaks: Multiple US sources tell us John Kerry asked Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing Clinton docs during FARC peace negotiations.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;wikileaks&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;788369924175441920&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;wikileaks&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;788369924175441920&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Ecuador Says It Still Backs Assange, but WikiLeaks Says It Cut His Internet</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/world/europe/julian-assange-embassy.html?partner=IFTTT&amp;_r=1</url></story>