Taking her cue from the respective Alexa ratings of these two sites, Ackerman assumes we know about Digg and focuses on NewsTrust, which will not hurt the feelings of us aficionados. In lieu of soliciting users’ evaluations, Ackerman wisely substitutes a survey of one day’s top stories on Digg, Reddit, and NT which neatly encapsulate the differences. (Given Juan Cole’s fame, “Informed Comment” ought to be identified by name, and his University of Michigan post acknowledged.) Though NT is well characterized, this is the second major story posted on NT itself which claims that members “rate a story on the basis of 10 factors,” when by using your toes as well you can count that there are 12. (Didn’t the reporter give the site a trial spin? It would hardly compromise journalistic impartiality.) One would like to hear more from FF about the quality of “unconventional sources on the Web.” (The presence of an editor in “traditional media” can sometimes ensure a report goes through more than one draft---seldom the case with blogs.) Many would like to applaud FF’s intention that “people will overcome preconceived notions . . . end up less polarized in their political beliefs.” But as member numbers swell, might this hope get swamped? Being involved in the early days of NewsTrust has been such a education experience that this reviewer wishes it---if you can apply such terms things cyberspatial---a long and useful life.