> (How much faith to put in an anonymously sourced claim about what was in the logs of an unnamed social network is a separate question, of course.)

Parent already addressed this. Unless you have evidence to the contrary the "what if" game does not take us very far.

I like to play the "what if" game as well as the "who profits" and "what has happened historically" game...

As well as the whatabboutism game ("what about the other side pointing fingers? Who has done worse?").

I don't like thought stoppers.

With any intelligence information 'what if' is most reasonable approach. It is absurd to trust anyone that has the objective to spread misinformation.

In comparison why would you trust anybody who is a professional liar on any information? Just because you have no other more reliable information does not turn the liars lie into a truth.