How do you know that? The only way you'd find out is if there is a lawsuit that exposes said information. Everyone here is assuming because they want to believe Twitter is an evil behemoth. I'm not suggesting they are wrong, but this guy could have done the bare minimum for all we know thinking his status gave him basically a free income to do almost nothing. I would wait until more information comes out before making such generalized assumptions.
I'm not sure why any sizeable portion of the public would know _any_ reputable cyber security experts. Twitter's CEO said the firing was due to "the impact on top priority work", and whistleblowing 6 months later isn't a surprising timeline when you need to have long talks with an attorney and get your own work-life situated.
That's probably the only thing that could lend Twitter any credence. Though, I'm not sure if they published the 200 page complaint, but none of the news outlets have said that he specifically references Musk, just that Twitter employees weren't aware of the amount of bots on the platform and were discouraged from doing so.
I did find one say that the complaint was already in progress before Musk's deal, and Musk rightly tried to subpoena Mudge for his recent exit. It does sound reasonable that the bot comment was added in light of the fiasco with Musk's deal.
He just got fired in January. Preparing a 200-page legal document with references and accounts takes time. It had been submitted some time ago, it's only now that CNN got a hold of a copy.
A 200 page document may take some time, but we don't know how the document is even formatted. Have they even released a copy? It could be 200 pages but only 20 pages of basic accusations with no real details for all we know, just pandering to congress and a bunch of email threads trying to indicate something without any context. I still would advise everyone to withhold judgement at this time.
