I agree that the mere concept of a bare messaging+microblogging platform is morally neutral, but frankly I just don't see what the point is of making that observation, because we don't have one of those, at least not something that's wildly successful enough to matter. (By that I mean that a platform that has 100 or 1000 or even a million users can do whatever it wants; unethical behavior just doesn't move the needle on a global scale.)

It's the classic argument, "technology is neutral; how it's used determines the ethics". Well, yes, I agree with that, but here we have a company that's using it unethically, and has no desire or need to stop their bad behavior. And that bad behavior has been instrumental to their success. That's what matters.