Am I the only one who noticed how ridiculously flimsy this article was? Let me sum it up: Kim Dotcom says he did nothing wrong. Legal documents say one thing b

Am I the only one who noticed how ridiculously flimsy this article was? Let me sum it up: Kim Dotcom says he did nothing wrong. Legal documents say one thing but they're wrong because Kim says that they're wrong. Kim Dotcom would never lie, right? So he must really have never done anything wrong. There's also this weird backtracking that goes on in the article. First the article claims that Mega is in the clear pretty much based on what Kim Dotcom says and nothing more but then goes on to imply that even if Mega did do something wrong it's totally cool because there are some people using it to share photos and videos of themselves. And those people are US soldiers so the Feds just have to forgive Mega because after all, we can never imply a US soldier would do anything unethical! Then the 50 Cent thing... "Well, yeah I uploaded the 50 Cent song but I totally bought it first and it was random and the the link was private! Just take me at my word TorrentFreak". And TorrentFreak does take him at his word. Then, because some big media companies wanted to do business with Mega it somehow absolves them of any sin related to hosting and facilitating the piracy of those same companies' works. Really? And it just goes on... Basically as long as what you say supports the TorrentFreak agenda they'll just take you at your word and report what you say as truth. This is 5th grade expository writing, not a news story. The sad thing is that people will read this garbage and take it as truth because it sounds bad like you should be outraged and it kind of sort of includes some semblance of fact. I can't say if MegaUpload did anything wrong or not based on this story because it's such a terribly written one. Lots of topic sentences, little to no supporting details, and no one seemed to check if what Dotcom was saying is really accurate.