Yeah. This article is a combination of an interesting story with a really unfortunate insertion of POV that sends up red flags for trustworthiness.
My favorite example is when he's talking about Lambda not registering with the state:
> Austen claimed the school had made an honest mistake, and the company lawyer, who he claimed told them that since all the classes were online, it didn't need approval. Sure.
And that's it. "Sure". He just smugly dismisses the claim without presenting any actual evidence to establish that that's what happened. This approach only works as journalism if the reader doesn't need to be convinced, but if they don't need to be convinced, why read the story in the first place?
Thats just the typical Mastodon commie. Resentful of the man in the arena and always looking to make themselves feel better by endlessly moralizing about others.
My favorite example is when he's talking about Lambda not registering with the state:
> Austen claimed the school had made an honest mistake, and the company lawyer, who he claimed told them that since all the classes were online, it didn't need approval. Sure.
And that's it. "Sure". He just smugly dismisses the claim without presenting any actual evidence to establish that that's what happened. This approach only works as journalism if the reader doesn't need to be convinced, but if they don't need to be convinced, why read the story in the first place?