You know, I like this idea a lot, but I am not sure about it's success. I can see it would be very useful for collecting like information into one place and provide a single point of entry for all information relating to a particular story or like stories (for example, a few days after the Ferguson shooting, a white cop in a southern town shot an unarmed black man he pulled over for a seat belt violation, and the city sat on the information and video for almost a week, which resulted in no story at all, which I believe was the point - who knows about that shooting? What else happened in the world that day that got by *me* in all the noise?). Your Infobitt system would have allowed for that information to be posted almost immediately; no axes grinding, just the facts - unarmed black driver shot by white policeman, city refusing to release any information. Folks who cared would want to know that. I suspect that that people don't want to know about things anymore. I read many news feeds every day and I also read the comments for most articles. It's pretty much a troll and hate fest. In my opinion, the media is used to divide, not unite or inform. The trolls and haters don't want to see facts, they just seem to want to turn the crank a little tighter. Folks like me might be inclined to contribute to Infobitt, but really, who will be reading it? Again, just my opinion, but I think that most folks would have no idea how to use the data collected and summarized, feel even more frustrated and powerless, and spend more time in front of the television. A front-end without a back is not very effective, IMO. Perhaps I am missing the back-end? The tools that allow people to act/react in a significant way to what they are reading? That would be essential to the success of this venture, IMO.