For what it's worth, in my experience actually providing a "source" rarely, if ever, seems to actually shape online arguments in a meaningful way. I suspect most people aren't actually looking for some scholarly discussion, they just ask for sources as a knee-jerk attempt to discredit the person making the claims they disagree with. The vast majority of people are not prepared to bring a list of citations to a casual internet conversation; they aren't defending a dissertation.
In fact, I would say that the mindset of demanding a source for claims is counterproductive and stifles thought. Why engage with someone when you can just discredit them for not providing a link to a study with a title and abstract that you won't actually use to re-evaluate your own position?
" Why engage with someone when you can just discredit them for not providing a link to a study with a title and abstract that you won't actually use to re-evaluate your own position?"
You are right, however when people are parroting their "opinions and own researches" on some more important topics like Covid-19 I guess you should not engage with someone without any source.
The original title: "How Elon Musk can improve free speech on Twitter?"
But I approve the title, just like I approve the simple, technological solution to a complex situation with lots of stakeholders and widely varying points of view! Because this article is premised on Mush already having acquired Twitter, and open sourcing Twitters "algorithm", which is of course, explicit and easily delineated.
I assume that Elon Musk, the Richest, and therefore the Smartest, Man in the World will take up this sage technological solution to a societal problem! He has no other choice! He must!
In fact, I would say that the mindset of demanding a source for claims is counterproductive and stifles thought. Why engage with someone when you can just discredit them for not providing a link to a study with a title and abstract that you won't actually use to re-evaluate your own position?