The concept is not dystopian because she's just proposing community moderation, like any message board has. She is not proposing government control.
It's a bad idea that makes no sense, but it is far from "Orwellian".
Generally speaking, you'll get an upvote/downvote/color mechanic, and a bunch of other people's responses, perhaps with some admin or moderator actions/annotations.
“Verified people [could be allowed to] essentially start to ‘edit’ Twitter [in] the same sort of way that Wikipedia is so they can add context to certain tweets.”
So she is not saying that content should be swapped without warning. She's describing essentially annotating tweets with community-edited Wikipedia articles.
Again, not a feasible idea, but she is at least correct that Wikipedia is both community-moderated and also remarkably low in bad information.
The article deviates from the establishment’s position. We don’t want you reading this.
The Totally not dystopian thing being proposed is definitely not dystopian.
Move along.
But it's currently unclear what this new appointment will actually do, and that's a problem.
Your facile sarcasm isn't making your point. It just makes it seem like you don't have any point other than, "Everything is wrong when the mainstream believes it!" ...which is obviously ridiculous.
The NY Post is not a neutral or factual reporter of this argument, and they have editorialized in a way that is politically-motivated and also plainly false.