The point I'm making is to question whether we should take the Washington Post article more seriously than direct statements from named employees.
The article is making assertions based on claims made by anonymous people who claim to be Twitter employees, and that either through malice or stupidity or "telephone" style information loss, there are countless ways that this article can end up being wrong. And precisely to your earlier point, the article encourages the reader to fill in the blanks about what various departments existed, what their roles are, whether they have direct, indirect, or no effects on the material on Twitter. There is nothing accurate nor verified about any of that.
It's all intentionally hazy, and contributes to the article's overt desire to push a specific narrative rather than provide clarity.
The thing is, I generally trust established media organizations to fact-check because their integrity and reputation depends on it. Facts are often cross-checked and verified prior to publishing. Journalists have a vested interest in preventing their publications from 'he-said-she-said' rags.
Do I trust a twitter figurehead, who clearly has tweeted this for Elon's sake, more than a journalistic enterprise? No, actually. I think there's a lot to read between the lines. My questions actually came FROM the twitter thread. The article filled in more holes that the twitter thread left open.
