I don't understand your criticism. How do you propose a bad-actor could control such a large number of accounts? even supposing this malicious figure had that m

I don't understand your criticism. How do you propose a bad-actor could control such a large number of accounts? even supposing this malicious figure had that much influence, the problem is just one of how Twitter bills its users. It is the platform's responsibility to determine how it bills and whether or not it is billing fairly. this is a technical implementation detail of the platform, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. finally, suppose those are "malicious followers". who cares? you pay for reach. if all those supposedly malicious followers stay as your followers they're still seeing your tweets. isn't that the point? I don't see how this is an abuse of the system. A view is a view. Are we suppose to now distinguish between friendly vs. hostile views? This is getting ridiculous.