That seems to be the case here. ;)

> So another guy who claims to be a Tesla employee says (again, strangely future tense) that this is true? I mean, I am willing to believe--'cause he paid $20 for a blue check--that he probably is a Tesla employee.

Another case of misuse? Here’s a tip for you. When you see a company logo/icon on someone's Twitter/X profile. That means they are verified to be affiliated with that org.

“Accounts affiliated with the organization will receive an affiliate badge on their profile with the organization’s logo, and will be featured on the organization’s Twitter profile, indicating their affiliation. “

https://twitter.com/verified/status/1641596848921276417

Instead of inferring that Tim Zaman is a random Twitter user who paid $20 for a blue check. Why not just Google his name? ;)

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Tim+Zaman

> I guess I'm old. Back in my day, "evidence" wasn't some random dude's online posts. But I know things have changed. ;)

I linked a video where CNBC was interviewing Sawyer but it seems that you didn’t even bother to check it.

This seems to be the problem today. People refuse to do the bare minimum (which is not even much) required for critical thinking. Instead of verifying information, people tend to uncritically repeat inaccurate assumptions, even when provided with additional information in good faith.