Your comment seems to implicitly assume that X has some ethical claim to the content they're monetizing, when in fact they're trying to monetize _others'_ content.
Your comment seems to implicitly assume that X has some ethical claim to the content they're monetizing, when in fact they're trying to monetize _others'_ content.
It's trivially easy to spin up a website and host your own content. Especially today with LLMs to handhold even the most tech illiterate person through it.
I'd imagine you are totally confused why they don't do this. If you aren't confused why, well then you have your answer for why X has a right to monetize it.
I'm not disputing that X has a legal right to monetize the content, but I am not remotely convinced that (1) X has the _exclusive_ legal right to monetize the content (content creators add no value and thus have no right to the content, which seems obviously absurd) (2) X has the exclusive legal right to prevent others from distributing the content for free or (3) your "network-effects-derived moats justify a legal right to monetize content".
You seem to be depending on a whole lot of assumptions to get to your "XCancel/Nitter/etc shouldn't be allowed to exist" conclusion.