YouTube is indeed a source as people have official YouTube channels. I’m linking a video of someone saying something - that’s a source. People who are young think sources are only weblinks because they’ve never written a bibliography without links in it at all. That used to be the norm.
So what exactly is philosophically unsound about what I said?
We can philosophically find the inconsistencies in numerology to debunk it as a science or predictive method. So what am I saying that is illogical?
I think the illogical part is how you cited sources that don’t say what you claim they are saying.
This is called “disinformation” folks
Which article specifically is wrong?
YouTube is indeed a source as people have official YouTube channels. I’m linking a video of someone saying something - that’s a source. People who are young think sources are only weblinks because they’ve never written a bibliography without links in it at all. That used to be the norm.