I think the current implementation of Twitter, with its short messages, is especially bad at nuance, which is pretty critical for working the actual truth.
But, ignoring the current state, I wonder how the truth sorting system could be implemented. It would fundamentally have to ignore emotion and tribalism, so voting is out. It would have to be evidence based, so the concept of a "trusted" sources would probably be required, which seems like a circular requirement.
> Or, at least, present both sides
Maybe the bubbles could be popped by allowing "counter tweets", which could be presented along with the original, one for each "combating" perspective. How would the counter tweets be crafted though? Surely not one person. Maybe a mix of tweets? How are those tweets selected? What happens when the two "agreed upon" perspective are actually incorrect, and a third, nuanced, point is the actual truth?