> I don’t think anyone involved at ProPublica knows what tax avoidance means
Just because something is not legally tax avoidance does not mean that it should not be.
> I don’t think anyone involved at ProPublica grasps why virtually all developed countries don’t tax unrealized capital gains
Again... whether we do or don't is not related to whether we should or shouldn't.
> I don’t think anyone involved at ProPublica tried very hard (at all?) to learn about what they didn’t know before publishing this piece
Sure.
> I don’t think anyone involved at ProPublica gave nearly enough thought to the implications of violating privacy laws (or at least norms) to publish a non-story
Or perhaps this is truly a societal issue, as evidenced by the wide difference between the current amount of taxes which the wealthy pay, and the historical amount; and as evidenced by the wide difference between different countries. The fact that it has long been a part of the public discourse suggests so.
> Just because something is not legally tax avoidance does not mean that it should not be.
I think this author would agree with you on this point and indeed most of your points. I think it could perhaps worth considering this author's point - understanding something about the systems being criticized is important because it guides people to good critique.
If ProPublica is indeed writing from a position of gross ignorance on the subject they are writing about, this should be understood by the readers and color how the story is read. Much as we here on HN are likely to find it salient if someone with thoughts to share on programming languages knew very little about computing.
Just because something is not legally tax avoidance does not mean that it should not be.
> I don’t think anyone involved at ProPublica grasps why virtually all developed countries don’t tax unrealized capital gains
Again... whether we do or don't is not related to whether we should or shouldn't.
> I don’t think anyone involved at ProPublica tried very hard (at all?) to learn about what they didn’t know before publishing this piece
Sure.
> I don’t think anyone involved at ProPublica gave nearly enough thought to the implications of violating privacy laws (or at least norms) to publish a non-story
Or perhaps this is truly a societal issue, as evidenced by the wide difference between the current amount of taxes which the wealthy pay, and the historical amount; and as evidenced by the wide difference between different countries. The fact that it has long been a part of the public discourse suggests so.
And none of that explains how it is "misleading".
Edit/PS: https://www.propublica.org/article/why-we-are-publishing-the... but sure, tell me how they didn't give "nearly enough thought to the implications of violating privacy norms"