appreciate the question and I understand the concern. Our algorithm will balance for this by surfacing and allowing discovery of novel ideas even if they don't have the strongest weight yet - as the source of that idea gets validated over time, their own track record will be used as a proxy for the quality of their future ideas.

The idea is that by relying on their eventual track record rather than just an individual claim, we can surface and reward novel ideas that have merit too.

- Facts are claims that are citing matter-of-fact reporting, public data, sequences of events etc. - Opinion statements are ones where its clearly the author's perspective or take on what's being reported on - the embedded reasons show the explanations in context. - Dubious claims usually highlight either exaggeration of some sort, or manipulative argumentation including extreme emotional language, appeals to authority and such