Anyway, I'm thinking more about this exact phrase rather than in your example where somebody demands an answer to an otherwise easily-solvable technical question. A lot of the time I end up googling the answer myself and then giving it back, but also adding that the question (depending on how polite the asker is) has already been solved elsewhere and could be found.
Everybody uses Twitter differently. For example, my account is private (for a few reasons), and I have a mix of friends and acquaintances that I chat to occasionally, but generally it's for finding out news and sharing it (to the people who are lucky enough to follow me). If someone unfollows me, that's no hassle. They can't re-follow me (because I'm private).
But I'm still not Google. If someone asks for a source, gets it, and then starts to argue with me about the source . . . odds are we're just going to disagree. Or they simply want
to disagree regardless of the source. I have a lot of patience for things like this, but not everyone does. Not everyone should have to. The busier someone is, or the more things they have going on, the less time and / or patience they're going to have for even innocent-looking questions. Twitter is such a mess that people will, pre-emptively declare that they won't be fielding questions. Because sometimes that's the only way to free themselves of the social burden of replying to every Tom, Dick and Harry that chooses to demand attention (apologies for folks with those names, it's a language reference
Twitter isn't an educational platform, right? I think that's a relatively uncontroversial thing to say
And sure, people can be using the phrase to be obnoxious, because they're so assured of their rightness, or whatever. But you can't assume that. So it's kind of a personal decision. Do you assume they have a charitable reason for being stand-offish, or do you assume that they don't? That's the salient choice here, more than the phrase that somebody is using, imo.