This sentiment has high correlation to driving conclusions from a very time limited information set. This isn't the only part that is going to be posted to github.

What is the net benefit from rushing to condemn something that can only be a net positive compared to the past alternatives? I don't understand the purpose of that approach. Help me.

I did find the article more enlightening than the source code. I always suspected the quality of a tweet did not factor in to its promotion, only its engagement, and now they have confirmed this to be the case. Now I understand better why twitter seems to be filled with people angrily retweeting what I consider to be low quality clickbait tweets.

As long as they don’t try to tackle tweet quality at all separately from engagement twitter will remain unappealing to me.

But why not shower Twitter with praise for doing more than any other social media company in a similar market position? In the best case scenario, we might inspire a transparency arms race. In the worst case, we merely signal that transparency of any kind is rewarded, and that's a good thing if we want more transparency.

This is definitely incorrect. Weights for images, links, misspellings, etc are all laid out in the code and have been detailed by multiple people on Twitter already.