Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple gets its share of critics as it has since its inception, but it also gets its share of loyalists where the rest of FANG don't. One quickly notices that in discussions there as much of a knee-jerk impulse to defend Apple, as there is to bash the company. Even your comment reveals an abrupt dismissal of the OP's testimony, impugning the character of its author.
I intended primarily to impugn their ability to tell a coherent, readable story, which is a necessary pre-condition for forming a judgment about the contents.
That's your subjective take. The author's account reads like one of a trauma survivor, and is complete with details, quotes, and bolding for emphasis. Those who refuse to consider alternate viewpoints will have made their judgements, even if they have never been on the inside. So be it. But it is absolutely reprehensible to dismiss a victim's testimony in bad faith as "barely coherent account of slights that read as a mix of real and imagined". Shame on you.