Highly regarded scientific journals like the Lancet are used to accelerate this weighting process.
The problem is that nowadays they seem kind of outdated, opaque and corrupt on many levels.
Nobody wants to suppress peer-review, simply replace the journals mafia with something less corrupt.
In my opinion, the best option for everybody who's serious about this is to read a lot of papers, until you become "well-calibrated", i.e. when you have a good handle on the overall chances a preprint is true, vs. a Twitter thread, vs. a paper in a top-tier journal. This has to be learned from experience. Reform doesn't change the fact that you need to do this -- it just adds yet another venue, either more or less reliable than the previous ones, that you also need to become calibrated on.
In order to do this, those that are serious need to be able to access papers, but paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for Elsevier can put them out of reach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
Normal peer review means "we showed our work to about 2 people who know what they're talking about and they thought it was okay."
Preprints mean "nobody who knows what they're talking about has looked at this carefully yet, but we think it's okay."
Viral Twitter threads mean "here's my opinion, which hasn't been shown to anybody who actually knows what they're talking about, but which has been selected for maximum public response."
Of course, in all cases, real credibility only comes once a paper has been looked over by hundreds of people who know what they're talking about. Yes, showing something to only 2 experts (who themselves are very busy, and are powerless to directly verify many of the paper's claims) is not a perfect initial quality cut -- but no cut at all is worse.
If you really believe in the power of Twitter, take a long, hard look at the sensational, outrageous tweets you've liked. Go look at a sample of 100 old threads and see how many actually held up. The accuracy rate will not even be comparable to the Lancet's.