> He's right about the specific NYT article not including much pertinent information, but they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification stand

> He's right about the specific NYT article not including much pertinent information, but they're a serious journalistic publication and have verification standards for sources. Ok? Regardless, this piece does a significantly better job than the NY Times and the "serious journalistic publication". The times articles actually misleads readers into thinking that the FTX downfall was moreso from bad timing & outside attacks then from SBF fraudulently stealing user funds. > immediately cite anonymous Twitter anecdotes as better sources The Twitter accounts directly quoted have many followers and a long history of tweets that are easily searchable. If you're referring to the Autism Capital tweet, that's a tweet of a photograph which you can look at yourself. It's clearly a stimulant that says EMSAM on it. Name the specific tweets in the piece that you find incredulous rather than an ad hominem.