Your basic argument is again, just like their prohibition analogy.

Twilio isn't performing good or bad deeds in this context - they're offering a service. The service is being taken advantage of by good and bad actors. By the logic you're presenting, we might as well shut down all telecommunications entirely, or any form of electronic communication that could be used by bad actors. Who cares if good stuff is being done with it if bad actors are being supported as well?(/s)

Sure, I'm fine with penalizing Twilio for not making sufficient efforts to block bad actors. In fact they SHOULD be made to provide information and proof on the efforts they take to mitigate bad actors, and penalized if those efforts are not sufficient. But bad actors will always find loopholes and ways to get through - it's not a one-time-fix scenario.

Any penalties should be financial however, not just outright shutting down the company. And it's totally fine if penalties are steep - I'm in the camp that believes corporate fines should be a % of revenue, instead of a flat amount, so they can't be written off as a "cost of doing business".

Shutting them down entirely for simply being a telecommunication service/API doesn't address the root of the problem in any case, since bad actors would just move to various other platforms (MessageBird, Plivo, etc.), which would debatably have even less capacity/capability for detecting bad actors, due to being smaller and having less potential resources to put towards doing so.

The innocent third parties who depend on them need time to switch to other platforms