The agenda of injecting completely unsubstantiated claims into the story and trying to pass them off as fact, such as the claim that Apple hid many more violations before the inspectors could get to them.
No basis in fact, just pure ragebait conjecture.
Her agenda is about getting clicks and followers first. She’s not making companies operate safer, she’s just editorializing a public report from the agency that actually works on making companies operate safely. All of her editorializing and fake claims is undermining the actual situation by making the facts unclear and making people trust reporting on the subject less.
There's a notable difference between fucking up the filter efficacy lifetime expectancy - meaning there are filters that were expected to work - and "I don't care" venting toxic fumes straight out the window like a Breaking Bad meth homelab or a Dark Waters dig dump cover up.
A GP scenario doesn't mean there's no blame either, but it's markedly different than the Dark Waters scenario described in the Mastodon thread, the latter which does read like it's using all the incendiary social media tropes.
Which one it is in reality I don't know and certainly won't claim I do.
Sign me up!