That's a big improvement. You have avoided personalising the issue and giving in to abuse. That's commendable.
There can never be crimes which consist of thinking alone, without some form of expression of that thought. But that's not what "thought crimes" means outside of a narrow science fiction brain-scan scenario. That's not what Orwell meant when he coined the phrase.
What it means here is that actions which would otherwise be legal are increasingly criminalised because of the determination of the thoughts behind them by the police and other agencies. As the tweet says,
"Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are".
This means that the only component of an intentional act which attracts the attention of the police is the thought behind it. In Retro's example, posting a clip of a pug raising its paw is legal, until the police judge that you had intent that they disapprove of. The same applies to the famous "Fawlty Towers" scene where Cleese does Nazi salutes. If someone posted a clip of themselves doing something similar, the police could make a judgement as to whether their intention was good, or bad. They are looking at (more precisely, trying to determine) the thoughts behind the action, not merely the action. That's very different from the principle of mens rea, which only looks at the intentions behind and understanding of an action which is otherwise clearly criminal.
Similarly, police questioning 10 year old schoolboys because of misspelling or requesting where the prayer room is, involves someone (a teacher, in both cases) making a judgement about their intentions. The 2015 Act requires teachers to do this. Or the case of this man:
https://semipartisansam.com/2016/03/24 ... r-attacks/
who merely asked a Muslim to account for the terrorism of her co-religionists. Doing this in the context of a debate about Muslims used to be perfectly acceptable, but someone has decided that his intentions were of a kind they don't like.
This is what I mean by "thought crime"; not that Her Majesty's Government table Bills with the actual term in the title or preamble, or that your local constabulary have a thought-detector van patrolling your streets. There is a great deal more of this concentration upon thoughts and attitudes than there has been in my lifetime, which is why I think it a retrograde step.