One of the most maddening things for independent thinkers to put up with is the widespread tendency for people to first vet the source of recommended information before deciding whether they will even look at the new information or not. This can get downright comical when people will refuse to click on a link to a “questionable” website, that is in fact a link to a story on another site they actually approve of, or appears to support something they believe. Can Creator share why this seems like “enlightened” behavior to these people?

Again, this is an illustration of mind control manipulation in action, that people simply do not have the flexibility to consider a range of options but first must look at whether an action and a destination to evaluate information comports with their consensus group. Will they be a member of one’s tribe? Will they be an accepted and safe and valid source of information, or someone you have been warned against, who is in the enemy camp and cannot be trusted, and to talk with them or review their thinking will put oneself at risk because they are "dangerous" and clearly not worthy of consideration, and might contaminate one’s thinking so it is a liability to expose oneself to the opinions of those who differ? This is actually a deeper drive than simple safety. It is actually a corruption of belief to reject things out of hand based on labels, even a conjecture that a label applies, as your question reflects. Even when on its face it can be seen that the information is consistent with one’s consensus group, if it has any link whatsoever to the opposing camp it will be rejected out of hand. This is a prescription for rigid thinking and major discord among these warring factions to become codified, carved in stone, and a dangerous impediment to growth and reason. It becomes another kind of prejudice in an era when people want to avoid prejudice at all costs but do not see it applies to them again and again when they rally around their own consensus flag and fear and loathe others not joining them regardless of the reasons why. This is all a kind of folly that is engineered to happen. It is not natural other than to seek a coming together and then to have concerns about anything that is an impediment to that goal. That could well be having people in one’s midst who are highly different and as a consequence are difficult to understand and perhaps not as rewarding to be with, for example, if people are not able to speak the same language and cannot converse. If they enjoy quite different customs and kinds of life experiences with little common ground, it is understandable such groups will tend to segregate automatically, and that is only natural. But what makes this different in our discussion is it is not simply a stratification based on natural affinities with respect to one’s makeup and past history, but an overlay of negative beliefs that essentially are a condemnation of those who are different and an expectation of personal risk and a possibility of degradation if they comport with others holding differing opinions, that it will somehow rub off and taint them. That is a true prejudice on display, so this is the downside of seeking out a consensus group with a willingness to adopt their thinking and perspectives. It will almost certainly involve a good deal of prejudiced thinking and an automatic cultivation of constraining, limiting beliefs that are quite out of alignment in judging others harshly without good cause.