Stepping back from the whole arab spring thing: Let's think about what identity verification actually means for the user.
Let's assume for a second Twitter has a magic wand that, without consequences, automatically deletes fake users used for marketing purposes.
Now what does identity verification actually do for the remainder of the users? In what way does it benefit them? In what ways does it inconvenience them? In what ways does it put them at risk?
Should there be a process in place, that is required of the entire userbase, just to fix the fake user problem? A problem that most users aren't even sort of aware of (otherwise the NYT article wouldn't have been as successful as it was).
We do a lot of reactionary things as a society that follow this exact pattern: Put massive processes in place to remove tiny bits of risk. Governments do that and justify it all the time, cf. the "Terrorism" or "For the children" memes. You often read people's complaints here on the ridiculous security theater that the TSA is, how it doesn't solve anything and inconveniences everyone for something that happens to people less often than winning the lottery.
This, is that. The pattern is: You have a tiny problem, you fix it with something which impacts your entire userbase because you didn't stop to think whether there are more targeted solutions, or even whether it's worth it.
[Note: I argue lower down that AI and statistics aren't the correct fix for this either... gotta keep digging. Maybe the "correct fix" is a mix of identity verification and statistical analysis.]