This is the central question. If someone isn't asking, "What would a malicious user do with this system?" and inserting their favorite internet bogeymen as a thought experiment, they haven't finished their design.

This is doubly true for safety systems. I don't see much of the press release focused on how abuse of the safety system will be avoided beyond, "We'll eventually let it be reviewed by outside parties."

They won't prevent it. This is clearly by design on Twitter's part given that the always-online bluecheck crowd leans so far left.

I liked some blockchain / crypto based ideas people were having - like you have to use crypto to even say something is fake or not. A journalist has to "pledge" crypto that a news is not fake and the smart contract releases the amount back based on certain evaluations like if the post was voted as fake or not etc. (I am sure as described there will be holes, but I like the direction it was heading.)