diff --git a/_posts/2017-07-28-minimum-majority-measure.md b/_posts/2017-07-28-minimum-majority-measure.md
index 2963957..f48e5ca 100644
--- a/_posts/2017-07-28-minimum-majority-measure.md
+++ b/_posts/2017-07-28-minimum-majority-measure.md
@@ -89,11 +89,11 @@ problems.
 
 ## 3. Not objective
 
-One of the touted advantages of the minimum majority measure is that
-it's objective---but it's not. Given that things such as miner names,
+Given that things such as miner names,
 full node versions, developer commit listings, full node IP addresses,
 and exchange volume can be faked, one needs to *subjectively* adjust for
-that possible faking.
+that possible faking.  This makes measurements more arbitrary and comparisons
+more difficult.
 
 For example, 21's own [bitnodes][] node monitoring service, which is used as
 the source for two of the measurements, only counts nodes that accept
@@ -104,6 +104,10 @@ alternative measurement [has its own
 problems](https://twitter.com/hrdng/status/884507512862593025) which
 need to be corrected for.
 
+*Edit: This section was slightly rephrased to address a
+[concern][balaji reply 1] from the original authors about the phrase
+"objective". ([diff][diff1])*
+
 ## 4. Why we need decentralization (the main point)
 
 Bitcoin users want many things, but I think the most important is that
@@ -242,5 +246,7 @@ a good tradeoff to me.
 [leland lee]: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lelandlee/
 [balaji srinivasan]: https://www.linkedin.com/in/balajissrinivasan/
 [21 inc.]: https://21.co/
+[balaji reply 1]: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/891438172248223744
+[diff1]: /aux/minimum-majority-measure-diff1.html
 
 {% include links.md %}