[eduction]

First the article says Chad Loder was recently suspended because his name was provided to Musk by far right accounts. Several paragraphs later it backs off and says it might be that he was suspended because he was supposedly on a right wing list of people they were trying to mass report (suddenly this isn’t about Musk any more but the standard reporting mechanism). The evidence for this is an archive.ph snapshot of an obscure Substack by a username in Japanese characters who alleges on Nov 7 that Loder was on a list, maybe, when you actually look at the text it’s not at all clear what exactly the person is saying. The article makes no effort to explain this or confirm the information. It’s a pretty shoddy piece of journalism.

Even when Loder is quoted he openly speculated about what happened and says he doesn’t know. The piece is just a tissue of insinuations.

[CameronNemo]

It is interesting you focus on just one of the banned accounts, glossing over the case of CrimethInc, for example:

In the 14 years that CrimethInc has been on Twitter, the account has never violated Twitter policies and has never been suspended. This changed last week after a Twitter exchange between Musk and Ngo.

Ngo asked Musk to suspend the CrimethInc account, calling it an “Antifa collective” and falsely claiming the group had “claimed a number of attacks.” Within hours of Ngo’s request to Musk, and without citing any specific violations of policies, Twitter suspended the @crimethinc account.

You can call this piece "a tissue of insinuations", but the evidence, taken together, is quite damning. A pattern emerges. At least for anyone who does not have tissues in their ears.

[eduction]

Ya I looked at their lead example and the one they talk about the most and they made serious errors. I see the CrimeInc case has slightly more evidence, like at least we know they asked for them to be banned.

So yes, in addition to clearly misreporting and making misleading and false statements about their lead example Loder they seem to have other examples where there is circumstantial (but zero actual) evidence Musk may have done something.

Personally I like much more rigorous journalism than this even when it’s about people like Musk who I dislike.