Thank you for responding to the reviewers comments in a thorough and polite fashion. I will be happy to make a final review of the paper once all these edits have been put into effect. Before you do this please follow up on the two points:

-I would like to follow-up on Reviewer 2’s comment on line 198, which you have responded to. I agree that a full analysis of the “voices” in the conversation is out of the scope of this paper. However, I agree with the general idea behind Reviewer 2’s point and would like to see slightly more information here. I realise that it would be a quantitative and mostly subjective overview, but I also think it is useful to understand if researchers outside seismology were involved in the discussion. This is particularly pertinent since you later state that the “twitter interactions on Mayotte brought the global geoscience community’s attention to the event”. The geoscience community is much more than seismology. Therefore, please include some description of who this “geosceicence community” was composed of.
-In your response to R2 and section 5, you might want to use a different verb than “to throw up”.

I will make some further general writing and structure comments when your updated version is uploaded. Thank you to both the authors and reviewers for a very constructive interaction!

Thank you for doing such a great job responding to all the reviewer comments in such a systematic and easy-to-follow manner. Your responses are a good example of how the review process should be followed.
You have taken the suggestions from the reviewers and myself seriously and responded in a constructive manner. I am very happy with the way the paper has developed. I have a few small suggestions for changes. Please see that attached file. Once these changes have been made (or responded to), then I will be happy to accept your paper for publication.

Thanks to the authors for the rapid turn-around on this. The paper is looking really nice now. Again, I thank the authors for a constructive and thorough peer-review process. Also, thank you to the reviewers for their constructive and rigorous feedback, which really helped to improve the paper. I look forward to seeing this officially published.
Kind regards,
Mathew Stiller-Reeve

I've enjoyed seeing this paper progress through the GC system, and I'm delighted to see it now ready for publication. A really timely and valuable contribution on a topical issue (as indicated by Idaho today!). Well done to all the team - and the reviewers!