[slg]

>It's a fact that a pattern of behavior was accused, but a pattern of behavior was not shown.

Yes, that is exactly what both the article and I said. The warning was applied to the link. Some people accused Twitter of doing that nefariously. Twitter denied it and claimed it was a mistake. Those are the facts of the situation.

The motivation for applying the warning or whether it was a mistake are not facts that can be confirmed by an independent journalist. They are speculation regardless of which side of the issue you come down on.

[Brian_K_White]

"this article falls into the fact based reporting category" is unsupported.

The article makes a general claim of behavior that is not supported by any single incident, yet only presents a single incident.

[slg]

What are you talking about specifically? Can you point to a quote from the article that you think crosses a line journalistically? Because it seems like you’re equating reporting on the existence of accusations with actively making accusations and that type of thinking comes from either bias or a lack of media literacy.