Except when you read the article, you saw a description from Twitter and link saying:

> State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/state-affilia...

Even though that help page contradicts their decision to label it as state-affiliated media, it does not change the fact that NPR is state affiliated media. Maybe they just forgot to remove NPR as an example when they changed their designation?

So when does Voice of America get the designation? Or Stars and Stripes? Both of them are 100% state-affiliated media - no gray line at all. And tag every affiliate NPR station's Twitter account too?

It does not get a lot of funding from the state. And every competent media outlet has contacts in government.

And it was defunded by an act of congress as well.

So... your point is... congress once gave them a fair chunk of change and now they don't but that doesn't matter because they once gave them a lot of cash. That's like saying my parents still control me because they gave me an allowance in jr. high school.

> Most foreign outlets Twitter and US media label state-affiliated are not directly controlled by the state. It's more like, hey, this institution gets a lot of its funding from, or has close ties to, the state

Twitter directly states that the label refers to editorial control, and that even state funded outlets where the state does not exercise editorial control will not get the label (the BBC is explicitly given as an example.)

So, no, your explanation of the labeling logic is not accurate.