Absolutely not. A news site presumes that a majority of the content on there is vetted, researched, and somewhat accurate within the bounds of typical news bias.

Twitter is an open platform that anyone can say anything on. It's a social media site, and people happen to post their personal stories/experiences. Nothing more. I believe we wouldn't have such issues with misinformation if people stopped giving so much wight to everything they read on Twitter/Reddit/Facebook/etc.

> A news site presumes that a majority of the content on there is vetted, researched, and somewhat accurate within the bounds of typical news bias.

I don't know where you live, but here a news site is a site following political views or creating new stories which have nothing to do with reality.

"researched, and somewhat accurate" is below 1 pecent of the site content.

the presence of journalists does not make twitter a "news" site. Twitter is a firehose of misinformation and nonsense, a fraction of which has some value.

I agree with your point. But to be fair, many news sites are also a source of misinformation and nonsense, a fraction of which has some value. When hearing any news, I think it's important to get some independent verification before doing anything serious with it. News sites should be doing that verification, but they are strongly pressured to get news out fast, and verification often suffers.

I'd say it's more a bulletin or news board than a news website itself. Journalists don't work for Twitter and write news articles, they just share it via Twitter as a medium.

By this logic the sidewalk in front of a bunch of newspaper vending machines is also a news site.

From a market of ideas vs information horizon perspective it is.

Yes.

USGS has a much better site for that.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/

Twitter can actually be faster than USGS, in my experience. USGS can have a several minute delay sometimes, and Twitter can be merely seconds late.