I wonder if the supposed free speech absolutists will excoriate Twitter for this, as they have in similar situations in the past?
(How you could believe Twitter adding their own message to something is against free speech I have no idea, but it was often argued before. I suspected at the time many people were claiming to be for free speech, but were actually only interested in defending speech they agreed with. Now we get a chance to see if that's true.)
> The free speech supporters would vastly prefer that.
They should not just prefer it, but actively support and defend it. It's speech by Twitter people after all.
But if you go back to when Twitter had similar responses to tweets from the last administration, you might be surprised by the reaction from many self-proclaimed free-speech supporters.
Fact Check: Not all free speech "absolutists" "excoriate" such things. Some of them have nearly always considered the context in which they're given to decide whether these kind of annotations indicate an actual fact-check, or, alternatively, a big flag that the post, podcast, or video might be something that contains genuinely interesting and informative content. Others enjoy seeing their oppressive opponents foisted upon their own petards, after the same tool did little to harm themselves to begin with, and then also seeing their opponents squeal in rage at how the turntables.
Remember by the end of his presidency, every tweet Trump tweeted was fact checked/had context added? It's funny watching the left now claim it's somehow a violation of something, especially considering this was an automated system Elon almost certainly hasn't had time to get to yet
(How you could believe Twitter adding their own message to something is against free speech I have no idea, but it was often argued before. I suspected at the time many people were claiming to be for free speech, but were actually only interested in defending speech they agreed with. Now we get a chance to see if that's true.)