TFA is a shallow, fact-free, ideological rant based on the premise that "If you want to change the world to a better place, the best way to do it is a for-profit because for-profits have to take feedback from reality." The author is at best uncritically free-market favourable, if not considerably more so, based on this and other writings.

User poetically, in the best pg sense, critiqued the core of the argument:

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says: <quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Graham%2...

poetically is practicing pg's highest form of disagreement precisely to specification and form. The post was flagged (groups never admit failure, after all), and you as moderator stepped in and admonished them. You're wrong, dang.

The refutation reads as a "generic ideological tangent" strictly because the article is a generic ideological tangent. The refutation is absolutely on point. The gericism and ideology are in the source, and must be pointed out as such to be an effective refutation.

If a submission cannot be properly refuted without descending into "generic ideological tangent" then the fault lies with the submission.

At the very least, restore poetically's comment and withdraw your admonition.