Such articles also fail to explore what things look like without the philanthropy. Even if Gates is somewhat evil, is the net result positive? Could his work be replaced by other organisations? I think both are answered in favour of Gates.
Sometimes I wish there was an overlay on website, giving a fact-check score e.g. "this website tends to be biased toward XYZ side of ABC issues".
I know a hatchet when I see one.
I share a lot of the critisism, but billionaires are not "sick in the head". They are playing by the rules that society gives them. They were exploiting them with luck and smarts to get where they are. This is not praise, but a counterargument to the sentiment. Society needs to set boundaries, instead of not doing it and then villifying those who take advantage of that.
In one case where I just happen to have done basic independent research, the author mentions Gates focus on family planning in Africa. The author suggests that this is some evil scheme to prevent a population boom, because $leave_it_to_the_reader_to_imagine_nefarious_purpose. In fact, this effort was motivated by research proving that the best way to improve survivability of children was to educate women.
The only sensible conclusion I could glance from this article is this: the author is of the opinion that billionaires shouldn't exist, because the author can't comprehend such a mind-blowingly large number.