> Is this really the important part?
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you right, but if you're asking whether I think it's important that twitter either apologized or at least "apologized," I do indeed.
The major social media institutions have touted themselves to be champions of getting the word out and a replacement for all other avenues of communication, leading to the demise of self-hosted (or, at least, self-moderated) blogs, websites, irc, regular discussion forums, and everything in between. But they continually screw up this responsibility at the times when it matters most, and we have to hold them accountable for this. Look at how all of Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter accidentally blocked OSINT coming out of Israel and Palestine after similarly being DDOS'd with "report this tweet/image/post" from either employees of intelligence agencies, paid shills, or just "the other side" to hide the ground truths.
It's not OK for this to happen. It keeps happening. The lack of remorse indicates that regardless of intention or motive, there's no real vested interest in actually keeping avenues of grassroot journalism open on these platforms (it's probably not the kind of content that makes them muchmoney, so no surprise there).
In this case, there was no public apology (or "apology") - the "sorry for the inconvenience" was in one-on-one correspondence with the blocked OSINT account.