If you write an article titled "Electricians Are Turning Homes Into Firetraps" and then cite the fact that I improperly swapped out an outlet in my home as evidence that I'm an electrician, you should expect pushback.

But the article works equally well for Uber or Lyft or indeed We work, all of which were funded by professional VCs.

I really like Ben Evans, but he's ignoring the main thrust of the article and nitpicking about definitions.

That's rarely a sign of someone who has a strong argument against a piece.

If it works equally well for Uber or Lyft or WeWork, then trying to shoehorn Theranos in since it's a spectacular fraud that doesn't really fit the definition was a bad decision.

That's rarely a sign of a piece that makes a strong argument.

The article covered WeWork much, much more extensively than Theranos.

I know its against the guidelines, but did you read the article?

Theranos is mentioned three times in the article, and always in the company of more cogent examples of VC-funded companies- Juicero, Uber, and WeWork. The quibbling over Theranos really does look like a distraction away from the main points of the article.