I argued specifically to points you made. It's intellectually dishonest for you to make intentionally vague claims and then assert that I am arguing against po

I argued specifically to points you made. It's intellectually dishonest for you to make intentionally vague claims and then assert that I am arguing against points you didn't make when I respond to your vague claims. You've proposed nothing concrete but a non-profit and provided no reason why that changes the morality of the action. Beyond that you've just made hand-wavey claims full of weasel phrases. If there are "well known ways" to change how journalists behave, then please enumerate these and clarify why they are better than what Thiel did. If there are "a bunch of ways" Thiel could help individuals harmed by bad journalism, then please elucidate, because right now it seems like you don't have anything real to say.