Fit_Official

I know this is a bit late, but I have an honest question. In the era of the internet where the "First!" comment has become pretty much canon, how is it that these two are ALWAYS the top reply to Trump's tweets?

He has millions of followers. Wouldn't it be a statistical impossibility for them to keep being "first" without some sort of help from Twitter? Even if Twitter prioritizes the responses of blue-check people, there's just no way they can consistently be at the top of the heap even among the subgroup that's verified and anti-Trump.

An AMA is just a tool to promote the subject's latest for-profit endeavor?

MY WHOLE LIFE IS A LIE. AN OVERTLY-MONETIZED LIE.

If you had a favorite line from Toby's exit interview, would it be "What gives you the right“ or "Who do you think you are"?

One of the main problems I and others have with news sources is obvious bias. Breitbart is right wing. Salon is left wing. The journalists on said sources usually share the platform bias except for a few token outliers, so trusting them to review either their own or their competitors' articles seems like asking the fox for chicken guard duty.

User reviews are also highly tribal, subject to brigading, and completely unreliable, so I don't think that score is going to mean anything either in the grand scheme.

Given those two issues/concerns, it seems that your platform relies on both of those methods for its goal of "credibility". So how does this in any way help or change the current toxic state of journalism and it's lack of credibility? Does it not seem that this is going to become another tribal "rating" people are just going to abuse to further their own agenda? What, if anything, are you doing to prevent that occurrence?

I'm genuinely not trying to throw stones. I just don't see how adding another bucket to the bailing efforts helps when there's still a giant hole in the bottom of the boat. If I'm misunderstanding something, please correct me.

He's from Winnipeg, you idiot!