Social media’s great strength over traditional mechanisms of research dissemination is its ability to reach a targeted and receptive audience instantaneously and further draw on that audience to create a stream of related content, in the form of real-time commentary, peer review, links to prior publications, and relevant personal anecdotes. Whereas the presentation and publication of any given research study relies heavily on the contributions of a few authors refined by a handful peer reviewers and editors, the postpublication critical examination of important research on social media can truly leverage the wisdom of the crowd.# ORBITA’s dissection on social media was surgical—the prerandomization medication regimen was questioned, the design scrutinized, and entire threads were devoted to arcane issues, such as whether ANCOVA would have been a preferred analytic method over traditional T testing. This type of postpublication scrutiny has become standard: the ODYSSEY trial, VEST trial, and most recently the prepublication changes to the ISCHEMIA trial primary end point have all received similar treatment. Conversations, ranging from the prediction of PCSK9 inhibitor trial results before they are released, to debates regarding the potential for adverse consequences of the Hospital Readmissions Reductions Program (summarized by Thompson in this issue of Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes), 1 to analogies relating the obscure epidemiological concept of immortal time bias to the consumption of Cheetos, often make research ideas and concepts more accessible to a broader audience of relevant stakeholders.