Subjectivity as a defining value, as outlined in Jacqueline Jones Royster’s piece, breeds the Twitter tribes described in the Twitter article. Twitter is supposed to be the solution to cross boundary discourse, controversial topics are debated everyday, but people align themselves with others according to their views. This alliance could be proved through a follow, retweet, fave, overall Twitter personality that declares as a subscriber to a certain paradigm. So although Twitter allows for people to speak to each other, rather than a single voice speaking for a group, this doesn’t prevent cults to emerge where the leading members of each side of Twitter (determined by following or frequency of viral tweets) to take stage and influence “laymen”. What is interesting is the dichotomy between “local Twitter” and mainstream groups on Twitter, who seem to know the ropes much more than “locals” who are in their own bubble. This dissonance resembles the miscommunication talked about by Royster. There are sides of Twitter that are worlds of their own, and when they address everyone as their audience, locals could react differently than people who are more familiar with popularized understandings of society.