The whole thing feels performative because the framing is all martyrdom. “Bankruptcy for exposing Meta” makes for a good headline, but when you bury the $500k advance it turns into a morality play instead of straight reporting. Writing a book and doing media is symbolic, but it’s not the same as taking protected disclosures through proper channels. That’s where the activism starts to look more about appearance than effect.
Call it what you want. Unless there’s something in the reporting to indicate that it is incorrect, then you should take it largely at face value. If you don’t, then go find evidence that counters it and make up your mind.
I’m not saying the reporting is factually wrong. Facts can be right while the framing still shapes the story in a way that misleads. That’s why skepticism matters.
It is about noticing when the narrative is doing extra work.
