The situation is interesting and kind of a grey area. The way they structured the network code as a plugin that downloads after first run is obviously to avoid violating the AGPL license, but if you don’t install it, large parts of the slicer are inaccessible. So it’s not at all like a normal plugin.
The article linked here is a consequence of the actions taken against the repository linked by OP, not a more 'credible source'.
The file linked in by OP, is the main argument by Pawel Jarczak why his fork does not violate any copyright laws (may it be written by/with help of AI or not).
I didn't say it was necessarily more credible, although I understand that was mentioned further up.
Personally I found the article (not the tweets) much more useful to understand the context of all this, as someone very out of the loop. Certianly more useful to me than a long list of very specific, in my option largely LLM output, points about a codebase I'm entirely unfamiliar with with claims that seem to need a legal team and court case to be meaningful. Slop is somewhat unfair and I'm happy to be disagreed with.
It is kooky that you think some conspiracy nonsense about Bambu being a Chinese company and so something from Josef Prusa, is better than a detailed (if AI-written) analysis of all the ways that Bambu's networking plugin is a tightly integrated component of the AGPLv3 Bambu Studio from the creator of the only reimplementation of that plugin that exists/existed who is the direct target of Bambu's recent legal threats.