If you're going to condemn a source, please provide evidence of cases where they have misreported in the past on similar issues.
For example, you could point to the New York Times' article by Anat Schwartz as evidence that the New York Times has pro-Israel bias.
Anyone who's used both Douyin and TikTok would see that the most salient differences are that the content is not shared and some regulatory details like requiring a Chinese number to register for Douyin.
If you haven't, then you're clueless.
Conflating code with DNA is both absurd and insane. Most software does not have a common codebase. Most DNA does.
If you're going to call out a source, come with evidence. For example, a time when China intentionally misrepresented import/export data to make Chinese companies look better.
Douyin and TikTok share like 90% of their codebase.
ByteDance operates Douyin in China.
If it's the truth then cite a legitimate source. It's not that complicated.
The fact could be "water is wet" or "the sky is blue" and I still wouldn't let you cite a large language model.
Please do not cite large language models as if they are valid sources.
It's the primary source, but I do agree...
Really? Citing MBFC? What are you going to do next, ask an LLM what it thinks?
If you want to judge your media consumption off of some guy with no pictures online, no public interviews, and a "strong grasp of the scientific process" gained through (supposedly) a physiology degree and half a communications degree, be my guest. Just don't launder it's reliability here.