Never heard of that site but it appears it's run and funded by a random guy who works in health care, helped by people who are proudly not professional journalists [1].... I'm not sure that is the great endorsement they think it is.
Well aware of that. Having compared several news outlets to their data, it matches what I would consider reasonable on veracity and political orientation.
Do you mean to suggest that the actions taken against the journalist reported in this article didn't actually occur, or that they did occur and are justified?
I think you are trying to add a narrative which is disingenuous.
If you want my opinion, I suspect they either pissed someone off or became a security risk.