By all means don't take it seriously, but in the interest of conversation, Tyler Durden is a pretty obvious reference to the quote "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero". Would you be more inclined to take a website seriously if they simply said their articles were penned by "anonymous"?
ETA: One thing I appreciate about ZeroHedge is that they include their sources. For example there was an article earlier today about a court ruling and the text of the ruling itself was embedded right there, inline with the article. Similarly when they mention a post on Twitter you can usually read the tweet for yourself and decide if their analysis is appropriate. That is a breath of fresh air after spending time on so many news sites (both major and more "fringe" ones) that just expect you to take them at their word. I'm not saying everyone should follow their lead exactly, but is it too much to ask that the primary source that is the focus of an article at least be linked somewhere at the bottom of the page, CNN?
ETA: One thing I appreciate about ZeroHedge is that they include their sources. For example there was an article earlier today about a court ruling and the text of the ruling itself was embedded right there, inline with the article. Similarly when they mention a post on Twitter you can usually read the tweet for yourself and decide if their analysis is appropriate. That is a breath of fresh air after spending time on so many news sites (both major and more "fringe" ones) that just expect you to take them at their word. I'm not saying everyone should follow their lead exactly, but is it too much to ask that the primary source that is the focus of an article at least be linked somewhere at the bottom of the page, CNN?