1. They're not as visible as the post they're attempting to moderate, so people just won't notice that there's more info.
2. Many people practice https://indieweb.org/POSSE so you now need to duplicate your reply across many separate social networks if you're going to match the reach of the specified content.
The nice thing about a plugin is you can associate the annotation with the underlying content by CTPH hash (i.e. the underlying tech for virus signatures) so it shows up wherever the annotated content shows up, regardless of URL and and with identical visibility since you're going by what appears on the screen not by whatever internal logic the underlying site uses.
Instead of bandaid-hack solutions leading to perpetual cat-and-mouse, why not build a citizen-owned platform from the ground up, as detailed here:
https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/
You would barely even need to advertise for it if it was obviously better than any of the existing corporate slop. It would sell itself, and the "profit" would be the end result that everybody can enjoy.
The people who run existing social media didn't start out evil, being in a powerful position made them that way.
I'll be rooting for this user owned thing to stay true to its goals, but if it's shaped like the other ones in all ways but its ownership structure, then I won't be expecting it to do so.
> The people who run existing social media didn't start out evil
Um, not all of them:
> On July 6 instant messages by a 19-year Zuck appeared on Twitter, along with a link to a 2010 Business Insider story about an exchange that took place shortly after the Facebook founder launched the social-media phenomenon in his dorm room.
> “Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard just me. I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS,” Zuckerberg’s message says.
> “What? How’d you manage that one?” a friend asks.
> “People just submitted it,” Zuckerberg responds. “I don’t know why they 'trust me.' Dumb fucks.”