Sure, I just meant to imply that the article should be read with the knowledge that the author is pretty controversial.

It’s easy for a determined interest to throw up enough smoke to make anything seem controversial — like evolution.

Some controversial things are genuinely problematic but not all of them are.

Repeating truths usually does get someone upset.

So does reporting untruths. That people are upset isn't a measure of truth either way.

So dozens of plant workers all have more or less the same told experience about the human indignities of labor in Tesla facilities but the untruth goes "either way"? That doesn't seem honest of you.

I wasn't trying to say that the article itself was true or untrue - just that if people were upset about the reporting, that doesn't say anything about the accuracy of the article one way or the other.