I would be less worried about their interest through stock ownership than how much this article and others like it reads like a passable re-wording of the press

I would be less worried about their interest through stock ownership than how much this article and others like it reads like a passable re-wording of the press release. I own stock in Tesla and other renewable technology companies (production, transport). I’d be shocked if anyone didn’t: either those industries win, or most places between the tropics are not compatible for human life, we have to deal with billions of deaths and billions of refugees (the IPCC report is ambivalent on other points, but this one is presented as highly likely). Electrek isn’t hiding which side of that bet they are taking. If there were many electric transport companies, owning stock in one over the others would be a source of bias, but there isn’t any meaningful competition yet. If they wrote critically about battery swapping, I’d be concerned if they had stock on Tesla but not BYD. This is not that. In this case, CATL has proven anything but willing to sell to willing buyers: everyone can rejoice the offer is expanding; it might not fit everyone’s needs. I’m worried that they show (in that article in particular and many others, but not always) a willingness to copy the contents of the CATL press release with little added value. They could highlight that CATL has not mentioned pricing, capacity, form factor, etc. Early technology tends to come with little production capacity, and suppliers tend to favor historical partners: they might not sell to anyone but Tesla and BYD for months. That restricted release and others like this one could unbalance the market in favor of more prominent players for a while. Whether you are a cheerleader or a adversary, that lack of systematic grid to read a press release shows that Electrek lacks critical reading structure. That’s a concern.