I don't quite understand the logical inference that occurs that Elon, the primary spokesperson and chief twit for Twitter may act erratically, but then no connection is made between the erratic tweeting and the exodus of advertisers, even though Elon's erratic behavior is specifically targeted at advertisers. Why does an unbiased take seem to put this entirely in the hands of "cancel culture". This says look at a persons actions over their speech, but for a person who's job it is to define the policies and culture of twitter, speech is action. The author discusses their lack of bias and allegiance to existing groups.
This idea may be a contentious point in and of itself, but I wonder if the author philosophically considers examining one's resulting views for bias that may not be intentional as part of being unbiased, or if unbiased may somehow mean unexamined.