It's quite a woolly article. I've read it twice and am not really sure what exactly it is he's ranting about. People's opinions are on the internet? People forward drivel on twitter? The Daily Mail is a shit? He finds source evaluation hard? He's actually said very little of anything in 600 words.
Literally no idea what point he is trying to make.
Internet makes more information available, but now since everyone has a voice it means that the truth is harder to find? Doubtless the author won't have missed the irony of moaning that online news and comment guff distorts the truth while being introduced to us in the first line as a blogger.
In the paragraph about Russian, "whats" is missin' an apostrophe
and here "Twitters reweet function"
"friends requests for help" and "I'm sure Im"
" People arent voicing"
"someone elses. "
"nearby countrys government - and were helping" - two missing in there
"it doesnt allow"
"you havent questioned"
no opinion on the article though...
I know why the caged bird sings, Only joy comes from song
She's so rare and beautiful to others, Why not just set her free
So she can fly, fly, fly
Spreadin' her wings and her song
Let her fly, fly fly
For the whole world to see