That a commercial entity requests that Twitter not automatically feed all of their news articles to the world hardly seems like an affront to free speech. You or I may not care for that policy but I must admit, the NYT isn't making much money off of me either way. The news reporting business in general is struggling to find a way to stay afloat and the cry that they owe it to us gratis doesn't help.

You make a valid point. Evolution is a term applied to the observation although I find it (validly) applied to more than just the fossil record. However, in common use, it does carry connotations beyond being an observation. And even as an observation, it is still subject to misinterpretation and misunderstandings just like all of our observations of the world (or universe) around us. I will admit that I know of some situations for which I would describe it by saying that it evolved. The teaching about Darwin could be about careful research and science but I haven't seen it done that way. It tends to be superficial but I suppose on the other hand, that most of our "teaching" even at the undergraduate university level is the same way. One has to work pretty hard to find the questions that were never answered and some of the observations that could never be reconciled. I will still maintain that the concept of "proof" is popularly misunderstood as if science reaches immutable closed descriptions. The whole wonder, at least in physics, is the surprises that keep showing up in our set of observations.

I only partly qualify. What I resist is the notion that theories (which are explanations or descriptions) are proved. I find the statement that "evolution is proven" to be a statement of religious dogma rather than a conclusion of science. The world, the universe, behaves in a certain fashion. Mankind, as observers, watches and tries to come up with a description of what happens. In physics (my background), that description often uses mathematics as its language. The theory is not reality, it is only a description of reality. That means that our descriptions are just conjectures as to the behavior. The description is useful where it works, and as long as it works. When it doesn't work, we have missed something whether in our observation or in our (mathematical) description. We may find a way to make it better - or we may find a different description that does a better job, at least in the places that the first one doesn't work well. Evolution as a description has holes in it; places where there are contradictions or massive gaps. Those are weaknesses in the "theory". There are attempts to re-describe some of the problem areas and ongoing questions on some of the observations that seem contradictory. All of that is well and good. But I do not find the conjecture that "perhaps not everything that we see evolved - perhaps there is something (an intelligent being) outside of the range of our observable space that put things in a certain way in the space that we can see" to be every bit as valid as a conjecture as evolution.

There really is a lot more to the challenge of making use of such a thing. The satellites that are stationary with respect to an observer on earth are in a very sought for orbit over the equator. If the used satellite is not already in a geostationary orbit, the new owner is unlikely to be allowed to get it there. So I see that there may be lots of hurdles including the hardware expense to distribute the satellite signal to the intended audience. However, I applaud the notion and wish them success. A non geostationary orbit satellite is much more likely to be affordable but establishing continuous contact is then much more difficult.