I think the basic argument the writer was failing to make is that it seems a bit of a waste of an MIT education for a guy to make a prostitution website. More

I think the basic argument the writer was failing to make is that it seems a bit of a waste of an MIT education for a guy to make a prostitution website. More disturbing was the site's creator trying to align his site with MIT's admittedly idealistic "mission statement" with the obtusely reductionistic argument that a business wouldnt have customers if it didnt "create value". It would have been less disturbing if the creator was just like "yeah it's kind of fucked up and sure some of the girls are going to regret doing it but hey it makes me a lot of money and thats enough for me." Maybe the more interesting debate is, had MIT known this individual was going to spend his education on running a prostitution website, should it have admitted him?