No, it is not close. The meaning is not similar. Either a site charges you money for access or it doesn’t. Twitter doesn’t. So don’t fucking say that it does, eh? What’s so difficult about that? What reason is there to say something is paywalled if it isn’t paywalled, except to stir the pot?

As I said originally, when legitimate media outlets publish misleading, sensational, or otherwise bullshit headlines, people are pissed. Why then is it suddenly a non-issue now? Why is it acceptable to mislead people if you’re just another kbin user when it’s such a mortal fucking sin otherwise? Saying that Twitter is paywalled is not ambiguity, it is misinformation. That’s because Twitter isn’t paywalled.