Exactly. The NYPost (or basically any news outlet and their readers) became dependent on Twitter on their own choice (or on their own laziness), and one of the consequences of being dependent on an external platform for your traffic is that you are subject to their contract. If you don't like the rules, you find or build another platform (and put in the money and effort to make it work).

This is basically the NYPost crying because it wants free stuff with no strings attached.

> The NYPost (or basically any news outlet and their readers) became dependent on Twitter on their own choice (or on their own laziness),

I'm curious what exactly you think they could have done to not end up here. I'm not aware of Twitter even offering a paid service that they could use, and network effects mean that failing to publish on Twitter just means that fewer people will see your stuff.

Most news outlets used to have RSS feeds which, once upon a time before it was removed from a lot of big websites (such as news outlets), allowed lots of people to get a feed of what was published. It worked for a lot of years and, if kept up and published, it could probably have given Twitter a run for its money. You could share the feeds you followed or even build public feeds from that (there are stil a bunch of them, mostly named after planets, for very niche things), so you could have a network effect.

Twitter doesn't have a paid service for users (it has paid access to their API, just in case somebody on this site still had doubts about what really is their core business), I was just making a (probably poorly phrased) example.