> So basically we have nothing. No, what we have is a publication who is claiming that the people they talked to were credible and had points that were interes

> So basically we have nothing. No, what we have is a publication who is claiming that the people they talked to were credible and had points that were interesting and tended to match one another and/or other evidence. You can make the claim that Semafor is bad at their jobs, or even that they're malicious. But that's a hard claim to make given that in the paragraph you've quoted they are giving you the contrary evidence that they found. And this is a process many of us have done informally. When we talk to one ex-employee of a company, well maybe it was just that guy, or just where he was in the company. But when a bunch of people have the same complaint, it's worth taking it much more seriously.