[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.