> A large coalition of political/social activist groups agreed not to try to kill Twitter by starving us of advertising revenue if I agreed to this condition. They broke the deal.

As with the Russian claims about a deal for NATO to permanently not expand in Eastern Europe, this is easy to show is unlikely to be true:

(1) In either case, these are things that would be recognized of utmost significance by all sides.

(2) In either case, the allegedly aggrieved parties (or their relevant predecessors in interests) were sophisticated actors, long used to working in an environment where durable binding agreements, particularly ones of great significance, were memorialized in writing affirmed by all parties, with copies retained by all parties, to assure that the terms are clear, fixed, and that evidence can be produced of them in the event of any public or private dispute.

(3) In neither case can the allegedly aggrieved party produce the writing memorializing the agreement, or any explanation as to why they (or their predecessor in interest) would not, as a condition for what they were giving up in the agreement, insist upon the common step of memorializing the agreement in writing,

(4) Therefore, it is highly improbable that the narrative of the aggrieved party is accurate.