Like others responding here, I finally found this annoying enough that I came here to create a feature request, and on checking, turned up this existing (declined???) one.
Friends, this is an issue not of style but of communication and comprehension. We are dealing here with concepts including parsing, semantics, working memory and so forth. And one of the most basic principles relating to parsing (in the linquistic rather than computational sense) has to do with order of presentation: do not present a collection of items (words in a sentence etc) in a sequence that initially provides one understanding but then, on reaching later items/words, reveals that the the initial understanding was incorrect, forcing a re-think/re-parse from the start of the collection/sentence.
this is by design, as we explicitly suppress too much discussion.
Silently suppressing "too much" information, divulging the fact only after the entire collection has been read, and then inserting the missing bits all over the place within that collection, is not only fantastically annoying, but also fails at the most fundamental level to take any account of these basic matters of communication and comprehension.
By the time the reader is informed that Big Brother has saved them from exposure to "too much" discussion, they have built up a picture in working memory, on which is based their understanding of the discussion. To put it mildly: it is not helpful to be told at this point that parts were missing.
I notice this proposal currently bears a "rejected" tag. I look at the weight of evidence on this page for support of the proposal (at the time of writing, a positive score of 62 in support, and a negative score of -7 for the answer flatly stating that it is by design). I wonder if the voice of the community is reflected in the "rejected" tag. I wonder if the discussion is permitted to continue, and the community's voice to be turned into action in the form of an "accepted" outcome. (Or would this constitute "too much discussion"? I sincerely hope not.)
As others have said, regardless of the finer details of the UI design, the crucial things we need to put in place are a) something to give the reader awareness of any suppression BEFORE they start to read the comments, and b) a control at the same location for the reader to toggle the suppression on and off. A "nice to have" would be to also have a way for the reader to toggle their preferred default suppression on and off.