At least three scenarios come to mind for starters:
1.
"That's slander, bish! You'd best take that down off your twitter or you can kiss my good friend Nick's juicy exclusive scoops goodbye! He MADE yew, bish!"
2. 
"Ew, this wifebeating rapist revenge pornographer sounds toxic for our brand." "Yeah ick, just take it down, surely nobody saw it in eight hours." "Streisand Effect? What's that?"
3.
"What's that, Frank? Um ackshually, the order never specifically states I can't send DMs lining up my self-declared pitbull's appearance on some journalists' show to go after Aaron by proxy, that's their own First Amendment right and- huh? What's that? All right, all right, relax, I'll have them shut it down, it'll be like it never happened."

"Why are you going after Ralph? He's a good guy and my friend!"
They cancelled on "good terms" which means they cancelled on Gunt Terms, meaning "delete all that shit about me right now nigger or I'll dox your children".
Well, the verdict is in, and they're at least claiming it's something like scenario #2 insofar as the truth about Ralph was just too horrifying to see publicly associated with their brand any longer, which sure reflects poorly on the the guy with whom they supposedly made a "mutual" decision to cancel, and who they previously claimed they would welcome on the show "further down the road":
[X] [A]
They also appear to be taking credit for the cancellation in that "not having him on" constitutes proof that they do not "protect abusers" like Ralph, so if there were any demands from Nick or Ralph that they actively sweep for him, those demands may have been DENIED DENIED DENIED:
[X] [A]
Is the Ralphamale truly going to live down being treated with that sort of disrespect from these ingrates after his good friend MADE them? What a weak, pathetic shadow of his former self.
They can't say nobody saw this coming though, and are already getting sick and tired of all these pesky gayylawgs that Ralph was so kind as to warn them about:
[X] [A]
Who are they to lecture anybody about "anon" accounts, when AFAICS they are effectively an "anon" account with nothing known about them other than possibly fictitious first names, and there has not (yet) been a proper phonebooking that sweeping for a cokehead child abuser, an out-and-proud MAP, and now Ralph may well deserve? Ironically, the first person to call for that proper phonebooking isn't even here, and was instead their new "friend" just yesterday:
It's not like [the gayylawgs] are going to say "oh wow, these people are cool now" - they've already been attacking these two! "Oh well, they're A-OK now"? No, they're gonna say "ah, this is a pressure point, let me attack these people harder, let me go through, let me dox them, let me look for personal dirt on them." I mean, that's just the way it goes around here, and if I had successfully pressured somebody, I would be saying, "well, this is a weak point, this is a weak link here. Let me zone in, let me hone in." Is it right? No, but that's what - you can't show any weakness, so...
[L]
A generous interpretation could be that this is just his way of saying he gave them some friendly advice not to show weakness in the way that they just did, so whenever his prediction comes true he can shrug and say "well, you can't say they weren't warned." Another interpretation could be that this was more of a veiled threat about what he can cause to happen to the manatees while blaming it on his own detractors, in which case
@Die For Me! 's scenario #5 may be the case. Lastly, there's always the interpretation that it's neither a warning nor a threat directed at the manatees, and instead he's butthurt enough by the manatees' disrespect that he would directed the above at the gayylawgs as
a challenge.
It's tempting to just grumble "challenge accepted" and get the job done in one bored afternoon, but are these two nobodies with three-digit viewership even worth the effort? The
Dabbleverse thread in progress over at Prospering Grounds would be a fine place for it.