What makes it misleading? It says just that. Although the article also says that by not buying the _exclusive_ rights to the image the 'cheap logo'-trick might

What makes it misleading? It says just that. Although the article also says that by not buying the _exclusive_ rights to the image the 'cheap logo'-trick might backfire when other (twitter-like) websites would (legally) use the same image. "Nothing is stopping people from making sites that ape, mock or build upon Twitter using its own official graphic."