Very interesting article! Here is what I've found in terms of archives of their old twitter. Not very complete, and IIRC, according to someone who discussed it earlier in the past few days (I don't have time to wade through all that and find it ATM), this version was saved by an anon in India, thus the use of Tamil as well as English. https://web.archive.org/web/20190418154928if_/https://twitter.com/thecollectiveq

Anyway, while I tend to lean more pro-George than anti-George at this point, I'm certainly open to watching how things play out. Having watched the George phenomenon closely since it started really gaining traction in January and watching how several of the discussions were playing out both on this board and on their telegram (before they closed comments yesterday morning), it doesn't bother me AT ALL that Evspra took the time and effort to start digging into George's legitimacy--I think that was very smart. The concerns that were brought forward certainly merited investigation and discussion. However, as OP's have said, none of these concerns were conclusively damning as presented, and counter arguments and pro-George evidence should be looked at just as closely before making a judgment. This process did not feel like it was allowed to play out completely. In fact, fairly early on in the discussion, I felt like those who wanted to present pro-George evidence were really put on the defensive. The "correct" narrative had already been established at the opening of the conversation (though Ev did initially say he was open to looking at any other evidence or views--this seemed short-lived, however), so presenting an opposing view felt like an uphill battle from the start.

What probably concerned me the most, however, was the continued assertion that George just instabanned everyone who raised questions and didn't address any of the concerns people took over there. I watched a fair amount of this play out (though not all), and this is simply not correct. Some people did get banned, for whatever reasons, but a number of others were not, and George DID give reasonable answers to the various concerns. It's up to each person to decide whether those reasons are "good enough", but it's not fair or accurate to say they DID NOT ANSWER. Perhaps at least as importantly, from the discussions I saw, George's responses were consistently upbeat and positive, in contrast to the accusatory attitude with which many (though not all) of the concerns were being brought up. I will admit, I don't like how many comments ended up being deleted off their site as the day went on yesterday--some I understand, but there were others I thought could have stayed up--and I don't like that their comments appear to still be closed more than a day later. I think a positive outcome of this (ugly) discussion has been the fact that we are, as a community, taking a step back to assess the situation with GN rather than just jumping on the bandwagon or dismissing it out of hand. The truth will come out eventually, either way.