I know there is a rally around this happening now, but I think it's pretty obvious that Disney was simply saying if you reply to their message with that hashtag then they want to be able to re-post your message as part of their marketing.
Of course the way they said that could have been worked on.
But the over-lawyer-ification and impracticality of opting out of corporate terms of service is an widespread problem. This is an interesting expansion of that problem, so it deserves highlighting.
Yes, obviously, but why would anyone need to consent to disney's own private terms of use on a different website for this? That's the shady part here. There could be anything in that TOS, and this tweet will trick a lot of people into agreeing with something they didn't read and shouldn't have to.
If Disney were embedding tweets, it would likely already fall under twitters license for redistribution of content (aka hosting.)
However, if Disney plans to copy and paste the tweets into another graphic, they felt they wouldn't have the appropriate license to reuse text copywritten by others, without this odd TOS.
The one thing about this that plays into Disney's favor, is the attention probably reduces someones honest ability to say "I never saw the agreement tweet."
Of course the way they said that could have been worked on.