I rarely read Jessica, but am happy that she is here because other people do read her. That's a reason for not saying anything definitive. I'm not an expert on her writing and I don't need to be.

But I can meet people where they are. And so that's what I was doing with this person I was responding to.

Similar, I don't believe I criticized Jessica for being divisive and I don't even know if she is deserving of that as a pejorative. She seemed to think people found her divisive and so I met her there and explained how that would show up in the platform dynamics.

That word divisive has so much emotional weight. But it can also be read literally. Almost everyone is divisive. Certainly this discussion is an example where I am divisive.

Meeting you where you are, could we talk about your concern about your own Op-Ed? I am in the comments in order to make sure I can explain changes clearly and right now I feel misunderstood and don't understand how I could explain it better.

For example, I'm using the word credibility, but you switched to using the word expert. And you describe being penalized for something that is well-researched but to me that sounds very similar to what I said in my comment about wanting to lift up people who had done "deep research."

In other words, I think your use case sounds like what I was saying we wanted, but I don't think that's how you interpreted it.

Do you have any suggestions for how to explain where we are headed in way that you would have heard it as an invitation and encouragement?