One example is that he first explains that there are two different Mozillas, the corporation and the foundation, and then proceeds to ignore that for the rest of the peice when it's rhetorically convenient to do so.
He bags on "Mozilla" for claiming that they relied on donations to function on a Foundation donation page, using the total revenue from both orgs as proof that wasn't true, but didn't bother to drill down into the Foundation's income specifically to see if the statement was true in the actual context that it was being made.
Which is a common theme in a lot of his work. If he has an axe to grind (and he clearly does if you're familiar with his comments about Mozilla going back like 5+ years), his journalistic integrity takes a nosedive. Remember when he claimed that Mozilla funded terrorists because they donated to a privacy focused email service, and some antifa group he disliked used that email service? I do.
Mostly, knowing how completely insane he has been on this and similar topics in the past makes me assume that he's probably as least being misleading now.