The argument falls flat by paragraph 7 of this long rambling piece. > But there’s no objective evidence of this, only the subjective opinion of Mudge that Twit

The argument falls flat by paragraph 7 of this long rambling piece. > But there’s no objective evidence of this, only the subjective opinion of Mudge that Twitter wasn’t doing enough for cybersecurity. ... > specifically that they lied to investors and failed to live up to a 2014 FTC agreement to secure “private” data. So is it subjective, or objective? Is the 2014 FTC agreement subjective? And then he just starts pissing into the wind. "He said servers were out of date, but Ret Hat 7 is 8 years old but it's still receiving security patches but I'll just hand wave that away." > Part of his complaint is that the now-CEO Parag Agrawal pressured him into lying to the board, to claim to the risk committee of the board that security is better than it really was. ...this is against the law. "Of course Agrawal did. He’s supposed to do that." This whole article is just rife with logical fallacies, incongruencies, and silliness. > In contrast, Mudge’s complaint is full of the assertions that he’s objectively right, and Agrawal objectively wrong. And since it’s objective that he was wrong, Agrawal must’ve been lying. The argument is that Agrawal intentionally misled shareholders. That's objectively wrong. And, finally: > What I read here in Mudge’s complaint aren’t the words of an executive, but the words of an activist. The complaint was written as a whistleblower not as a CISO.