What stops your criticism from being a fully general counterargument against any community with an opinion?

The EFF is biased in favor of free speech and encryption, and markets to cyber-punk programmers. So all arguments in favor of free speech made by any EFF member in any EFF-related article can be immediately discarded.

"dogruck on HN" is biased against rollingstone.com; and gathers upvotes by appealing to people who dislike rollingstone.com(which, separately, is ineffective); so we should discard his opinions.

In fact, because you seem to know about biases, you may actually be more prone to them: http://lesswrong.com/lw/he/knowing_about_biases_can_hurt_peo...

What is wrong with being skeptical of a publisher or source? Surely you don't claim that every source is equally valid.

In fact, my original post, which expressed dismay that we celebrate Rolling Stone for reporting about LIBOR, has been downvoted 4 times.

If you want to be lauded for "being skeptical", maybe include some kind of interesting or informed commentary or critique instead of posting a meaningless drive-by attack on the source.

So people who oppose the american conservative political view are also against LIBOR?