>- X has the technology to reliably detect such accounts unless they are incredibly well "hidden"
Has, or had? With massive layoffs, they might not have the staff or know-how left to do this, or the time to implement it.
>- X has the incentive to reliably detect such accounts as it has shown in the past by shutting off data access. It seems to care much more about this than most news websites
OK, but still wanting to do something, and actually doing it, are two different things. I'm not convinced this hollowed-out shell of a company still has such ability.
>especially with all the other stuff going on at X right now. But it's only a matter of time before that changes.
This seems to assume X is going to continue to survive and in fact thrive; I don't think that's a good assumption.
Has, or had? With massive layoffs, they might not have the staff or know-how left to do this, or the time to implement it.
>- X has the incentive to reliably detect such accounts as it has shown in the past by shutting off data access. It seems to care much more about this than most news websites
OK, but still wanting to do something, and actually doing it, are two different things. I'm not convinced this hollowed-out shell of a company still has such ability.
>especially with all the other stuff going on at X right now. But it's only a matter of time before that changes.
This seems to assume X is going to continue to survive and in fact thrive; I don't think that's a good assumption.