The right to remain silent is a vital right in criminal court cases, but certainly doesn't apply to our own conclusions. Consider that only Tinder has records indicating whether there was a ToS violation, and what that violation was. Tinder is not releasing those records. Tinder has a financial incentive to claim that there is a ToS violation. Putting those three items together isn't proof that Tinder is lying, but is evidence in that direction.
How do you know the blog author doesn't have evidence of a ToS violation (that they're not sharing)? Similar incentives to shade the story exist on both sides, I think.
The blog author isn't the one who stated a tos occured. The company would need to provide proof. The author could refute that with their own data afterwards.
If someone says you stole something should we ask you for proof that you did and if you fail to provide proof should we say you are being shady by not answering?
