Friend. The argument isn't "you should judge something by its reputation". The argument is people do that. It is a heuristic or whatever you call that kind of shortcuts.

It is impossible to assess the validity of every source and detail. We rely on trust and reputation and other signals. It's faster, cheaper, and good enough for most things. When your friend you and trust says "I've got some free candy in the van" you probably respond differently than when a blood soaked stranger does.

I'm not saying we should rely on this entirely. I'm simply saying that's a fact of life. People save effort by not critically evaluating everything from first principles when they can just go "my friend recommended it, this Taco place is probably good". It could be a horrible taco place! But it's faster to go by something like in-group recommendations than a full research project.

I feel like I'm repeating myself into the void. Surely you don't all launch extensive research projects for every piece of information and decision that you come across.

This whole damned thread started from someone saying

Criticism is not evaluated by where it comes from, but by whether it’s true or false.

And that's just not how humans act all of the time! Sometimes, often, they don't think through everything. They don't research. They look at the source and go "nah".

You can argue that's bad, and sure it often is. But that doesn't change the fact that that's how people behave.