This strikes me as a really bad idea insofar as getting informative news. Cafeteria plan news means that people only get what they want to hear, instead of being informed by a broad variety of sources. It's partly what has happened since the move from physical newspapers to click news, but at least with news outlets, they can subsidize the less click-worthy stories by subscription fees. Not to get all old-man on readers, but the nice thing about an old newspaper is that you could read it cover to cover and get a broad set of information on topics you wouldn't necessarily have chosen otherwise, but might round out your interests.
Humans are
moved more by storytelling than they are by facts. We are
moved more by outrage than we are by simple information. The idea of humans as rational actors in economics and psychology has long been abandoned, so the concept that we'd pick only the most accurate news to "tip" seems very unlikely. Humans would pick the most compelling and emotion-inducing articles and those would rise to the top. The incentives for journalists would be to create more of these. People like Alex Jones have been able to profit off of this particular combination for years. A platform without guardrails would result in a lot of Alex Jones types across all subsets of political and ideological views. I seriously doubt it would incentivize long form, multi-reporter investigative journalism that may or may not pay off. The financial model would certainly be much more lucrative for spewers of emotion-inducing nonsense.