How about...’hey, I may not be an engineer but that structure doesn’t look safe to me....’. Should an engineer ignore that?
Ideally an engineer would have enough time to look at that (and the employer enough money to pay them for doing so), but especially with a structure like that of Twitter, it will quickly lead to information overload. Twitter lacks a meaningful filter for information, especially for such a purpose.
You have that in open source software projects and their bug reporting, for example, but this is possible due to the specific niche character of specific motivation, and even so is often troubled by the amount of invalid, unspecific or repetitive reports.
A problem with Twitter is the tendency to throw everything in one big pot (unless you just follow specific persons), and to encourage spur of the moment postings. On the other hand, that may also be some of its attraction for those who like that. But it appears to affect the quality of opinion forming especially regarding emotional political content. Some of it resulting in valid (or at least interesting) questions, but these questions are not asked in a way that those who could answer them would have the time and money to answer them (except maybe select few), especially given the risk of mentioning details that are then misinterpreted, misquoted and misrepresented, and then having to correct that (or not be able to do so).
There would have to be an intermediate or filter, and that is (or has been) the media. But in so far as the media is now "fake news", there is no substitute either, other than small echo chamber outlets who at some point give up on significant fact checking and start pushing their "common sense" which is specific to their small audience under the pressure of making an interesting statement that gets heard, sometimes like their audience has hearing problems (which may be the case).