This is not a technological matter, it's product knowledge of a website the judge has no reason to use. This isn't a trial about Twitter, there's no reason for the judge to have any specialized knowledge here. She asked a totally normal question relevant to the discussion (did Twitter provide the requested credit card and bank account information) and then moved on.

You're complaining that a random judge doesn't know that Twitter is free?

It's a central and ongoing misunderstanding throughout the document that, beyond verified users, the Court does not realize Twitter account is not associated with a verified human identity. A judge should not be walking into this case completely ignorant of the subject matter that will be presented to them, but this one is.

It is unreasonable to expect a judge to be a subject matter expert on every case they preside over. That's why they ask questions. That is a reasonable question considering there are ways of paying for twitter and ways of getting verified on twitter.

Judges are assigned randomly. They have other cases. It's the lawyer's job to inform the judge on what they need to know.

“Oh, shit, we have a lawsuit about oil extraction rights up next week. Anyone know a judge who’s also an amateur geologist?”

That’s not how it works. The lawyers on both sides are responsible for explaining the salient points; in most legal systems the judge is not expected to be an expert on the non-legal aspects of the matter at hand.

Creating a Twitter account in recent years requires a valid email address and valid phone number, or at least it did until recently. Twitter definitely has a pretty good idea of which human being is behind the majority of its accounts.

You're confusing judicial incompetence with someone not doing the same things you do.

Given it's a 206 page document that can't be searched, you might consider providing a page number if you're gonna quote it.

If you really want to search it then you can OCR in Foxit or Acrobat and text search after