[dragonwriter]

> Why would a free-speech "purist" be okay with authorities having special abilities to append emphasized messages below other messages?

A free-speech purist would recognize that these aren't “aurhorities”, they are actors exercising their free speech, and which people are free to not associate with by not choosing Twitter as a platform for their own (distribution or consumption of) speech.

[betwixthewires]

You forcing your own caveat on what I said before other people get to read it is a good bit different that simply freely speaking, regardless of the fact that you own the medium.

Either Twitter is a place for us to speak or it is the blog of the moderation team. It cannot be both. If they want to caveat everything everyone says then you're right, the solution is to not use the site, but it isn't because we don't like what they're saying, it is because Twitter is no longer a website designed for people to have discussions with one another, it is a website designed for the owner to control the flow of ideas.

[jmull]

> Either Twitter is a place for us to speak or it is the blog of the moderation team. It cannot be both.

That’s your opinion, but not one Twitter shares, apparently.

> Twitter is no longer a website designed for people to have discussions with one another

It is already not that. It was never that.