It is. But it does not follow that any kind of noisy door-rattling indicates serious investigation. Just like how in reality most breakin attempts come from bored teenagers posturing to IRC channels, this article basically namechecks controversies without really reporting on them.

The article is full of little drive-bys, like "what about that neocolonialism?" What neocolonialism? Whose premise are they accepting? How does that premise, applied uniformly to all enterprise, implicate all of western civilization? Are we litigating modern capitalism through the lens of a tiny SF tech healthcare charity? Oh, wait, this is Salon; of course that's what we're doing. Or, "recently controversial investor [Paul Graham]" --- here Salon has literally synthesized a narrative from TechCrunch and Valleywag stories its reporter does not actually understand. Not only that, but it does so pointlessly; Graham's nonexistent controversy isn't relevant to the story even as written.

If this was a Wikipedia article, half of the text in the article would have little blue superscripts; "weasel words", "citation needed", "who?".