Even if you take what the article says at face value, the implication that PG is morally bankrupt doesn't work, because of the following: music bosses are moral

Even if you take what the article says at face value, the implication that PG is morally bankrupt doesn't work, because of the following: music bosses are morally bankrupt because they get wildly unimaginably rich off artists' efforts, and prevent said artists from getting even mildly well-off. If PG were like a music boss, he would take 100% of the company for $20k, and proceed to make the startup sign an agreement that prohibited investment from any other firm. Then, he'd sue the users of said startup for using said startup's product, on the rationale that he was defending said startup's founders.