This is a blatant and vapid smear piece and does not deserve any sort of well-constructed answer. However, since it has gotten over 200 retweets, I'll go ahead and make a criticism. Thread below: https://twitter.com/pemalevy/status/1197931428069171200?s=19

Relying on her readers' overwhelmingly negative perception of an existing archetype, @pemalevy spends over half the article establishing that Andrew Yang is a "tech bro." Aside from its overt deceitfulness, this characterization has racist and paternalistic overtones.

In the first paragraph, Levy shapes a mold from which a "tech bro" candidate may emerge, beholden to corporate interests, capable of using the system to his own benefit - and male, of course, though no mention is made of the minority categories Yang DOES occupy.

I'll leave the final judgement to the reader, but I believe Levy's willingness to use one demographic placement to support her argument while leaving the more obvious one unsaid may display that she is profiling Yang as a tech bro at least partly because he is Asian.

Moving on, the first "proof" Levy presents of Yang's tech bro affiliation is a comment (taken out of context, no less) on his attire. Though dress says a lot about a person, it's laughable to construe "not wearing a tie" into anything but a simple anti-establishment statement.

In addition, in using an out-of-context quote by an expert on digital sociology, of all things, to legitimize her attack on Yang's wardrobe, Levy renders her agenda quite transparent - to smear Yang at the cost of her journalistic principles.

Levy goes on to write an paragraph intentionally reminiscent of past articles about the campaign of Donald Trump - "meme-centric;" "online;" "mostly young men" - again both insinuating something untrue and relying on the crutch of a pre-existing, negatively percieved archetype.

In reality, Yang is not advertising much to young men at all; for better or worse, he is a family-centric candidate. Watch the official video below for a good example:

Additionally, though his popularity began on the internet, Yang's support base is now quite powerful in real life. His rallies attract thousands, and last quarter, he raised an unprecedented $10 million.

But Levy's not done misleading us yet. I'll give her some credit - finally, after yet another inane criticism of Yang's wardrobe, Levy DOES get to an argument slightly weightier than aerogel (but just as brittle) - a criticism of his policies.

It's a shame that it's nothing more than another slew of falsehoods.

Yang is not pushing a solution engineered by Silicon Valley executives. UBI is, in fact, an idea that's been around for a very, very long time.

The roots of the "Freedom Dividend" can be found in the books of Thomas Paine - the writer of the revolutionary-war resistance pamphlet titled "Common Sense." In more recent times, a primary advocate of UBI was Martin Luther King, Jr.

Besides, suggesting that UBI is a policy of unregulated expansion is even more laughable than using a sociology expert for a quote about clothing. I could argue this fact a million ways, but I'll leave that discussion for another day.

I suppose, even in a smear piece, the author must eventually get to the subject at hand. Finally, we see A Truth! (Sort of. Yang actually has three major policies - saving the environment, instating a UBI, and changing the way we do capitalism.)

But the truth must quickly be followed with a lie. In the same sentence she acknowledges its expert support, Levy puts forth the idea the UBI is libertarian. It's a common take, but have a look at http://yang2020.com  and you'll see how far from libertarianism his plans are.

Using words like "evangelize," she twists the positive effects of UBI into negative ones. She takes advantage of her readers' assumed disillusionment with capitalism, trusting they'll dismiss anything that suggests the market can support a lifestyle of plenty for the masses:

Perhaps even more troubling than this fallacious dismissal is the insinuation that Yang intends to use no other measures to combat climate change and reform education. Yang recognises UBI's potential to make many improvements, but he DOES NOT consider it a fix-all.

In fact, Yang has the greatest number of specific policy proposals of any 2020 democratic candidate. Again, visit http://yang2020.com  if to see his plans for everything from healthcare to criminal justice reform.

In the following paragraphs, Levy resumes her "tech bro" attack. She writes Yang's statements with filler words intact, attempting to evoke an image of a dopey Californian. (Yang is from NY.) Adding insult, she baselessly questions whether he actually knows any "tech savants."

The article ends with an accurate quote, but at this point, it is clear that Levy simply includes it so her readers can snarl at this fraud, this shallow tech bro, this double agent. We are to join her in derision, like high schoolers sneering at a dumb jock.

But Yang has been criminally misrepresented, and the name of journalism has been tread on.

The best part? This isn't an opinion bit. It's "news."

@pemalevy, I would be happy to read a well-researched criticism of Yang's candidacy. Good journalism is key in determining where to lay our support.

But this? This is willfully decietful and an insult to the intelligence of your readers. In the future, I hope to see better.