> and we have a reason to believe they're representative of Twitter's engagement process. I'm not even sure they need to argue that, given the article itself d

> and we have a reason to believe they're representative of Twitter's engagement process. I'm not even sure they need to argue that, given the article itself doesn't seem to make any direct claims with respect to frequency of occurrence. Granted, I'm not exactly sure how implication is analyzed in defamation cases, but I don't think whatever implication may be present here is particularly strong, if that.