I read the linked article and it was terrible. It kept playing a sleight-of-Hans between him being an example of what monopolies empower (which he is), and he as somehow the cause of monopolization (which it doesn’t support at all, it just makes meaningful glances in that direction). Quite a lot of its arguments boil down to “he’s rich,” as though that were a sin in itself.
No one who went into that article without a pitchfork in hand is likely to emerge with one.
No one who went into that article without a pitchfork in hand is likely to emerge with one.