[fragmede]

Tactics which will win over the court of public opinion differ than tactics that would win over regulators, but the piece was always going to try and convince the reader of it's thesis, whomever the reader ends up being. I'm curious why you think the difference in audience make those tactics rise to the level of deception and propaganda though. Stripped of all bold emphasis, would the document read the same? IMO, yes. But I'm not an SEC regulator.

[maxbond]

I believe the document lied about the intended audience - both directly stating and, through form and aesthetics, implying, that it was for one audience while truly being for another - to mislead the reader into thinking it was more authoritative than it actually was. Were this to be a blog post or press release, I wouldn't call it deceptive.

I go into slightly more detail on this point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32603317

No, I don't believe it would read the same without emphasis. Especially since the emphasis is often on superlatives rather than the substance of certain statements. I'm not sure what to say other than, "emphasis is a tool of graphic design that does, in fact, function." It guides the eye and enables the reader to skim, and if you took away the emphasis, this document would be less effective, at least if the goals of the document are what I have argued.

[aaaaaaaaata]

"Lied" makes it seem like the guy has any agenda besides protecting the Internet and the community around it.

Your questions seem reasonable except the fact they're about him!

Do you understand his (very populist) history?!

[maxbond]

It does not seem likely to me that Mudge wrote this document personally. The document either doesn't have a byline or the byline is censored, but I'm guessing it was authored by some lawyers and distributed by Whistleblower Aid, or perhaps authored by Whistleblower Aid. I don't think it particularly reflects on Mudge's personal views on the situation, and it probably doesn't reflect on his intentions either.

It's pretty apparent that one of the intentions of this document is to get Musk out of hot water - totally separate from "protecting the internet" and not a particularly populist goal.

I'd speculate this represents a collaboration between Musk and Mudge's legal teams, probably in exchange for Musk funding litigation from Mudge regarding wrongful termination. That's all speculation, it's just what makes the most sense to me.

[fragmede]

From having worked with Mudge tangentially in the past, the bit about Twitter not having a cold-boot scenario and that being a problem sounds like him. Given Mudge's storied history, I don't know that he needs Musk to help him fund litigation regarding wrongful termination, though the timing is interesting. Musk has more funds than Mudge does, and spending someone else's money is always more fun than spending your own, so maybe there's something to that, but as you say, that's just speculation.