Evaluation of Social Media Sources

 In artificial intelligence, an issue that is as of now mostly speculative, the general social media opinions are equally speculative, generally asking and posing more questions on the matter.

"Twitter Logo" Wikimedia  CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

 Source 1:
https://twitter.com/AidenHH/status/640313032296517633

Credibility: There is no underlying credibility to the user because, as he shows no background in any field relevant to the subject.
Location: There is no localized place for this discussion to take place.
Network: His network seems to be personal friends, not any sort of global or national following.
Content: There is no clear corroboration, as he is being more theoretical in his post.
Contextual updates: There seems to be no pattern of him tweeting on this subject often.
Age: As it is his personal account, it is most likely not an account made to simply comment on this subject matter.
Reliability: it is not necessarily reliable, but with an issue that depends on future events, it is word against word and theory against theory.
Source 2:
https://plus.google.com/105229351028637148713/posts/hTPCB7VkYtg
Credibility: The person refers to himself as a writer and editor in his own description, but aside from that he does not seem to have any direct connections to an institution.
Location: Their location is not relevant, the book he is commenting on is his only direct connection to what would be involvement to the issue.
Network: He has a relatively large following, with close to 10 million views on his page.  There is no obvious signs of him being related with an institute though.
Content: Yes, it relies on a book that he is referencing that correlates to the issue.
Contextual updates: It seems that he focuses more on writing than any other thing, and it is the overlapping subjects that is the reasoning for him posting about this issue on social media.
Age: His account is not new and shows many signs of common updates.
Reliability: His comment is slightly open to interpretation, but it clearly is drawing a parallel between simulated minds vs the human mind and their similarities.  This brings up a valuable point, and is in a way reliable.