As I read the article, I can't help but feel that the tone is exceptionally unfair to Mast Brothers. It seems the primary charge is that 'some, but not all, of

As I read the article, I can't help but feel that the tone is exceptionally unfair to Mast Brothers. It seems the primary charge is that 'some, but not all, of their earliest sold chocolate bars were made from mass-produced chocolate,' referencing bars sold at a flea market (wherein they allegedly acknowledged to a buyer that some-but-not-all were made from mass-produced chocolate). The article then criticizes them for browsing the largest Chocolatier forum on the Internet for advice... Is this supposed to be a serious criticism? Then it goes into the quality of the chocolate and alleges that it's overpriced. I would argue that it's subjective, and there isn't anything inherently wrong with strong marketing. Maybe their chocolate isn't that good (I've never heard of Mast before reading this) and they're just convinced it is? Finally, the article ends with attacks based on mere speculation and attacks on the general chocolate industry as a whole. I'm not making any judgment on Mast Brothers chocolate one way or the other. It's just that this article has a whole lot of aggressive language propping up some pretty weak evidence.