So? No one has a "right to the last word," so that when they speak, everyone else has to shut up so their words will be the exclusive influence on their audience.
It's important for free speech that people be able to point out when someone has lied or spread misinformation.
That's certainly wrong. A reply by an ordinary user using the ordinary mechanism is a very different thing than an official editorial note which carries the imprimatur of the platform. And of course they added code to hide it by default, which is an additional level of control which beyond any sort of replying.
They don't have to change the original wording to exercise editorial judgment and power. This seems kind of obvious?
Sorry, no, It's not wrong. Twitter's reply using a new mechanism it created may be different than one made by an ordinary user, but that difference doesn't turn their reply into an edit.
> And of course they added code to hide it by default, which is an additional level of control which beyond any sort of replying.
Yes, and it's their right to do that.
> They don't have to change the original wording to exercise editorial judgment and power. This seems kind of obvious?
I never said they weren't moderating their platform (which they have every right to do in any way they see fit). I was merely disputing the weird conflation of "reply" with "edit."