Zero sources provided. There's a link that looks like it should go to the twitter post, but is a list of Newsweek stories about twitter. And the posts are apparently now private. So what did you judge this article on?
I judge this particular article as poorly sourced for the same reason you do. I do not judge the article for the religion of the publisher. I never read Newsweek. I thought it was long gone. But now that I know it’s there, I shall continue to judge its merits based on what they publish, not what the supposed political beliefs of the owner or staff happen to be.
Really? You seemed pretty willing to defend a Christian (cult?) publisher by completely ignoring the faults of the article to attack criticism based on their religion. Knowing if a publisher has a clear incentive can help determine how accurate and well-sourced their claim is.
You seem to be hallucinating. I cannot find anything I said defending the publisher. Perhaps you were responding to another post.
I have upvoted both of your posts that seem to be responding to me, because I much prefer a downvote and discourse to being down voted without comment.
Your position was "I judge things by how accurate and well sourced the claim was, and this claim of dodgy ownership is irrelevant." I can't see it as anything but a defense based on religious/political affiliation.
