I’m not sure if this would really be worse; it would slow down viral retweets and could induce users to add context or reframe the shared item to better suit their audience.
I mean, imagine what it would be like if someone in real life just constantly repeated things their friends said, word for word, to everyone in the room. Yes, people do sometimes parrot things from other people, but more often it’s modified, filtered through their own understanding and viewpoint, adapted to the present context and audience, and selected for relevance and appropriateness.
The "adding context" bit didn't really happen, because quoting the tweet ate your own 140 character limit, and a viral RT is always going to get more exposure than your explanatory reply.
But I don’t think that people wanting to reshare in a digital context would bother with the work of rephrasing. They already have the opportunity to add their own thoughts to a tweet they reshare. I suspect it would be practically the same.
People like to share things they hate, especially on the Internet of the last decade
My national subreddit was a perfect example of that, most of the posts were posted by people opposing what was said in the linked article and willing others to rage about it too.
And this already happens, often between people who've blocked one another yet want to continue the personal attacks. It's all too easy to open a blocked tweet in Incognito Mode, take a screenshot, add negative comment, and hit post.
Which highlights just how confused Twitter is about what they want the "block" feature to be. As I like to say, Twitter is the only website where I get more permissions to view content if I log out.
Imagine if your copy of the daily newspaper came with some stories greyed out because the authors of those stories saw something you said online once and decided they didn't like you, so now your paper comes with their stories hidden. But have no fear! You can just log out and read those stores.
What a weird feature.