[autoexec]

> "no evidence" implies there is at least a place there could have been evidence, they looked, and didn't find any

Yeah I'd never assume that any of that is true. Sure, there probably are ways twitter could find out if something has been being exploited like evidence in server logs or new batches of accounts showing up for sale on the black market, but I wouldn't trust that they looked for them, or that they looked very hard, or that the person making press statements was told about it either way.

If a company has a financial incentive to not find information it's weird to assume they'd seriously look or be trusted to be honest about what they found.