I get this "it was money in exchange for goods" point of view, and I certainly find this article stupid and misleading. But I'm still a little uneasy about wha

I get this "it was money in exchange for goods" point of view, and I certainly find this article stupid and misleading. But I'm still a little uneasy about what happened with Oculus, and the trouble that I have is, if you look at the the pledge levels, a lot of that money was nothing near a "cash-for-goods" exchange. 7 people pledged more than $5000 to get to meet the Oculus team. 100 people pledged $75 for a poster and a t-shirt. Those aren't purchases of goods for market prices; those are donations for token rewards, no different than when you give to public radio. Oculus solicited private donations to continue their work, and if the Facebook acquisition results in a dramatic change of direction for Oculus I think that will be a betrayal of donor trust.