In some contexts I agree, like when field experts publish blogs or tweets. For example, Scott Aaronson does this often ( https://scottaaronson.blog/ )

The problem is that this generally requires already having the credibility / “clout”. Without that, you’re just some anonymous person screaming into the void that the mainstream is wrong. there isn’t a dialogue, just a rant. And without a name backing you up, the internet has little reason to care about the rant.

I don’t see the numbers and analysis in this article contributing to any discussion but rather providing a facade of authenticity for the following political rant. And the problem is, if someone says it’s legit analysis, why should I believe them? Until an expert will put their name on the line, I just don’t care; and that brings us back to the peer review / “clout” problem