The questionable ethics of scapegoating aside, comparing Twitter's scalability issues with a misguided feature is particularly pointless.
If you wanted to blame someone for a feature (if you're into that sort of thing), you could either go after the concept or the execution. Once you pick either of the two, I'm sure you could winnow those down to a few people and then flip a coin or something.
If you want to blame someone for an app that's not scaling, you're trying to tie down a completely amorphous concept to a single event. Do you fire someone because they didn't have the clairvoyance of realizing that some lock somewhere had too much contention?
Scaling is really hard; and like other dark arts, it involves a lot of sleepless nights, long stretches of despair punctuated by moments of pure joy. There's just no easy way out of it. http://twitter.com/Werner/status/1472242433
I call _bullshit_ on the statement that the object isn't individual punishment. If someone had a truly, tremendously bad idea, does that mean they are more likely to have bad ideas in the future? Maybe they just have more ideas, period, just as the programmers named in the most defect reports are often the programmers who write the most code.
Naming and shaming people can be important for cases of malfeasance. Although I detest the diggbar and other sneaky ways of eroding privacy, I am not sure that they are matters of moral turpitude.
And if you believe some things are deeply wrong, the author of this post seems to conflate creation of the Facebook beacon (a privacy issue) with creation of the diggbar (gaming a search engine) and with Twitter's architecture (optimizing a startup or speed to market) and with overpaying for an acquisition (behaving like everyone else during the last Tulip Mania).