This article has little content in it, and I can't even parse which side of the debate you're trying to stake a claim to in this follow-up comment, though you seem to be very firmly on whatever side that is. Regardless of which side that may be, though, it seems appropriate to ask you if have more evidence than the word "preposterous" and some scare quotes around the word "fact".
You really need to work on your political rabble-rousing.
"Fact" because I can't tell if it's true. (I'll confess I have great doubt.) "Preposterous" because it doesn't seem possible a web site would cost that much. Relevant to HN because it's about a web site, and the readers here are well positioned to evaluate how such a thing might actually be true.
I was worried it might appear so, but I was not trying to rabble-rouse. Sorry if you mistook my intentions.
You really need to work on your political rabble-rousing.