I see your point, but what’s weird is Twitter is banning these accounts and the press is freaking out about it. Why not let these npc memers continue to self own? Why interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake?

From Twitter's perspective, meme-makers aren't the enemy. Drama is good for their revenue numbers. Bulk fake accounts are a problem in general, so I'm sure they noticed the spike. But I'd guess the false election information is the honest motivation for the mass ban. People have basically given them and Facebook a mulligan on the 2016 election. But they definitely don't want to be blamed twice an a row for ruining democracy; not only does it make them look careless, but it significantly raises the risks of intemperate regulatory action.

Satire definitionally takes on elements of what is is criticizing. So your question is good, do they understand they're engaging in the same behavior they are criticizing. I think the answer is obviously they do. Just like when SNL does an obnoxious loud rendition of Donald Trump, they know they are being loud and obnoxious. I don't think most people would say SNL self-owns because they are being loud and obnoxious just like Trump - they are clearly mocking him.

Yes and no. If one person posted a bunch of this stuff in one spot, that would be satire, and the ironic contrast between text and intent would be heightened. But having a lot of people do it diminishes the contrast. Here the mass behavior weakens any satire.

SNL can pull off a loud and obnoxious Trump character, because they show they can work in many other registers. But SNL itself doesn't become indiscriminately loud and obnoxious throughout a whole episode in hopes that people will make some meta-level connection between general obnoxiousness and Trump. And for good reason; a tiresome character in contrast to non-tiresome characters can be good drama. A tiresome show is for most poeple just a tiresome show. There's a reason badfilm like The Room is very much a niche taste.