We've updated the title above. As others pointed out, it's possible that the publication changed their own headline. This case smells like that to me. Btw, one trick is to look at the URL, since those are harder to change after publication. In this case the URL includes the word "raids".
Edit: yep: https://web.archive.org/web/20210524155244/https://techcrunc.... It would be interesting to know why they rolled it back. I haven't read the article, but I bet there was something excessive about the original claim, because they've softened it in two ways: changing "raided" to "visited" and putting scare quotes around "manipulated".
Edit: yep: https://web.archive.org/web/20210524155244/https://techcrunc.... It would be interesting to know why they rolled it back. I haven't read the article, but I bet there was something excessive about the original claim, because they've softened it in two ways: changing "raided" to "visited" and putting scare quotes around "manipulated".