It isn't about the website - they were just one of many small sites jumping on the news before others did. While you are correct to question the veracity of a smaller unknown site, what they reported is easy enough to verify on numerous other sites.
"Fox News, NY Post, Infowars, Business Insider, The Sun, Newsweek, Epoch Times, RT, and other sites carried the story with information almost identical to what the OP posted. The Wayfair company responded to the claims, denied they were trafficking, but did not deny the pricing or the naming. "“Recognizing that the photos and descriptions provided by the supplier did not adequately explain the high price point, we have temporarily removed the products from site to rename them and to provide a more in-depth description and photos that accurately depict the product to clarify the price point," Susan Frechette, a Wayfair spokeswoman told FOX Business in an email Friday."
Doubting the validity of the claims without more proof is fine. Doubting the source of something without bothering to check if anyone else is saying it, makes zero sense in today's world where access to alternate sources is very easy.
DDG sometimes takes awhile to pull in brand new stories. I like using it myself, and did use it for this story as well. DDG might have shown the NY Post a few hours after the story was trending.
Using multiple browsers and search engines, I found that at the time the original post in this thread was made, NY Post, Business Insider, The Sun and several small sites were covering the story. There was a much earlier post on Wayfair trafficking in rising, but even when that was posted, NY Post and 4 small sites had stories on it.
It isn't about the website - they were just one of many small sites jumping on the news before others did. While you are correct to question the veracity of a smaller unknown site, what they reported is easy enough to verify on numerous other sites.
"Fox News, NY Post, Infowars, Business Insider, The Sun, Newsweek, Epoch Times, RT, and other sites carried the story with information almost identical to what the OP posted. The Wayfair company responded to the claims, denied they were trafficking, but did not deny the pricing or the naming. "“Recognizing that the photos and descriptions provided by the supplier did not adequately explain the high price point, we have temporarily removed the products from site to rename them and to provide a more in-depth description and photos that accurately depict the product to clarify the price point," Susan Frechette, a Wayfair spokeswoman told FOX Business in an email Friday."
https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/wayfair-denies-reddit-human-sex-trafficking-conspiracy-theory
Doubting the validity of the claims without more proof is fine. Doubting the source of something without bothering to check if anyone else is saying it, makes zero sense in today's world where access to alternate sources is very easy.
At the time this was posted it was only r-conspiracy and this website from what ddg showed.
I think you are correct on that.
DDG sometimes takes awhile to pull in brand new stories. I like using it myself, and did use it for this story as well. DDG might have shown the NY Post a few hours after the story was trending.
Using multiple browsers and search engines, I found that at the time the original post in this thread was made, NY Post, Business Insider, The Sun and several small sites were covering the story. There was a much earlier post on Wayfair trafficking in rising, but even when that was posted, NY Post and 4 small sites had stories on it.
follow up to the story: Wayfair is hiring an new operations manager... so i guess they fired the guy who didn't catch this
I should use multiple search engines, this is true.