@Matt_Pinner
We are the media
X claims AI aggregates eyewitness and expert input into a real-time news feed better than traditional journalism. Sentiment: 63.43% support, 19.43% confront.
𝕏 is the new model of news. "What we are doing on the 𝕏 platform is we are using AI to sum up the aggregated input from users who are at the scene and who are experts in the field and aggregate that into a real-time news feed which is far better than conventional journalism." https://t.co/aq3WEENRlz
Real-time analysis of public opinion and engagement
What the community is saying — both sides
A big wave of enthusiasm celebrates real-time, crowd-sourced reporting powered by AI—users repeatedly call it “we are the media now,” praise the platform’s speed, and say it delivers first-hand truth faster than traditional outlets.
replies emphasize no gatekeepers, redundancy and diversity of eyewitnesses, and a belief that X can outpace and out-verify slow newsrooms.
At the same time, several voices urge restraint—verification, contextual synthesis, and editorial integrity are raised as necessary complements to raw aggregation.
Commenters question policy and funding priorities, noting debates like the AI literacy bill (S.
and criticizing public-media subsidies while platforms deploy operational AI—this injects a political dimension into the conversation.
users report ditching news apps, bookmarking feeds, and celebrating the platform as the go-to source, with many thanking or praising leadership for the shift.
A smaller but notable thread underscores practical concerns and curiosity—readers ask how accuracy will be ensured, where ethical guardrails sit, and whether AI/human collaboration will find the right balance.
Many replies rail against recommendation systems, calling them biased, attention-seeking, and effectively turning the site into a megaphone for certain actors or ads rather than a reliable news source.
A recurring theme is that speed and aggregation without verification produces misinformation; users argue platforms need disciplined editorial judgment, not just AI-driven feeds.
Several replies claim the platform is rife with fake news, white supremacist content, or coordinated narratives, with some estimating very high levels of false information.
Commenters point to designed incentives, fragmented oversight, and monetization structures as the root causes that reward sensationalism and suppression rather than accuracy.
Many contrast trained journalists with mass “crowdsourced” takes, arguing that expert analysis and transparency can’t be replaced by unverified aggregator outputs, while others mock the idea of true experts on the platform.
Several voices accept AI’s role in data collection but insist it cannot substitute for editorial responsibility, governance, and source verification.
Users allege inconsistent curation—same story posted across services gets different treatment—and call out perceived favoritism toward certain accounts or agendas.
Replies mix frustration, ridicule, and calls for reform, with a few brief supportive or neutral comments scattered throughout.
Most popular replies, ranked by engagement
We are the media
Kekius maximus create 𝕏 ,and 𝕏 is the media now
𝕏 is literally breaking generational indoctrination.
Aggregation without verification is just faster misinformation.
AI can collect data, but it doesn't replace editorial responsibility. Without transparent governance and source verification, this isn't a new news model, but an accelerated model of disinformation.
Its 80-90% disinformation.