Focusing my review on the segment on Twitter's Birdwatch, I found the piece to be well-researched, thoughtful in its analysis, and fair to the project that has received some criticism from those who don't think crowdsourced solutions are appropriate in this fight. Well done.

It appears to go in favor of Twitter's Birdwatch program, a tool that I believe will do very little to improve misinformation.. I find rampant bias and egregious misinformation when it comes to activities related to Israel and Saudi Arabia ( a major shareholder) and I hardly expect that to change.. Twitter on it face triggers emotional responses and hardly constitutes a venue for anything reliable . I would never use Twitter for 'fact-finding on any level . It will never acquire legitimacy no matter how they attempt to regulate content.

Extremely interesting article, presenting a lot of fact, data, sources and arguments, both for and against this new tool Twitter is making, Birdwatch, in order to weed out misinformation spreading, all through a community approach, which then removes the 'company power' and gives power back to the people as a whole. Though it seems to be working well, there are a few issues, and it's a slow-going process. It's all told in a very logical and easy-to-digest narrative, filled with quotes and direct links to research from reputable sources.

Good context of Twitter's Birdwatch project, bringing up the notes remains limited to the thousands of volunteers who applied and were accepted into the pilot program, and mentioning how this can affect people's behavior while sharing news on the platform.