The poster you're responding to doesn't appear to be operating in good faith, so the sources are irrelevant: they're purely vapor. You can just make stuff up and claim it, and if you can get someone to argue over the stuff, you've just become ONE SIDE of a both-sides narrative and legitimized the thing you made up. You can con yourself into believing it if you're a paranoid type, or you can be just out to manipulate. It does not matter whether you're sincere or not. It's the outcome you're after.
I'm not interested in their sources. They're giving enough 'tells' that they're operating from sort of a post-reality position, and it really doesn't matter whether that is out of delusion or manipulation.
Well, how can one verify if something is correct or not if there is no link to sources? Without sources, there is no way. With the sources, one can verify the sources, if needed in depth (recursively). (Except if one side controls all the sources, as done in the book 1984. But in the western society, we are not in this position yet, luckily.)
Neural networks have relatively stable connections (neurons know only neighbours, and assign thrust / weight to each other). That is a "gossip". But as a society, we want a faster way. But faster ways (radio, TV, Twitter, Facebook... this site here) are more dangerous, so we need the sources.
> if you can get someone to argue over the stuff, you've just become ONE SIDE of a both-sides narrative
And you steal other peoples times.
> They're giving enough 'tells' that they're operating from sort of a post-reality position
For you, yes. But for others, it might not be obvious. So calling out "where are the sources", and then seeing there are no reliable sources, might help those others.