1. Greenwald weakens his point by conflating different types of reporting as one type of "hall monitoring". First he focuses on journalists who write about disi

1. Greenwald weakens his point by conflating different types of reporting as one type of "hall monitoring". First he focuses on journalists who write about disinformation. For example, he links to a piece discussing how InfoWars and similar outlets game the social media algorithms to get views and how they aren't stopped at all. But to compare that type of journalism, against disinformation sources who have repeatedly and purposefully put out fake news that has lead to considerable harm and even death because of the number of people that believe the falsehoods, with telling on Marc Andreessen, is a strange argument. The second part of his argument is quite strong! There is a weird obsession with finding and calling out people whose opinions and words are out of line with accepted mainstream beliefs. But I don't understand why the first part was included in this piece. It makes the whole thing come across as petty, despite the valid arguments. 2. He condescendingly uses "millennial" as a pejorative, which is unnecessary and exhausting. It's also bad writing. 3. This line, "Jezebel (which really ought to just change its name to You’re a Misogynist, since it has no other content)", is objectively hilarious, regardless of its accuracy.