My other comment. Summary: SpaceX seems to be no worse an actor than other operators. Doubling the number of satellites in orbit would, by the odds, result in an expected doubling of the number of incidents (if not more, actually). Owning half the satellites in orbit means they, again, by the odds should be involved in around half the incidents. These statements are in the article, but obscured because the article presents the facts but doesn't clarify that statistically this is actually close to what should be expected.

Further, they do provide enough facts to see that OneWeb is actually slightly worse than Starlink. However it's again obscured because they present a raw total without conveying how it relates to their share of satellites in orbit.

And that's on the facts. The other aspect is the tone. The way we phrase things influences interpretation, journalists (especially) are aware of this. The article's style:

> Starlink satellites come within 1km of other satellites 500 times per week.

This lays, implicitly, the blame or responsibility on Starlink. However, it could be easily turned around (both satellites in a close encounter are in motion, it's not like Starlink satellites are approaching static objects here):

> Other satellites come within 1km of Starlink satellites 500 times per week.

Here, Starlink is presented as the innocent party. The two phrases express the same idea if you read past the implication the ordering presents, but by choosing one or the other you encourage the reader to come to a conclusion that isn't justified by the rest of the article (in either manner of phrasing).