He is saying it now because that “turns” the documentary from “supporters” into a documentary from “critics”. That helps sales. And now the news coverage is pulling attention to it again and of course, that is good for the sales/views.

So I disagree about the stopping to make money with him part, he is milking the other side now.

I know an easy fix. Just don’t do ai.

Even without the worth inflated, can HE, though?

The CEO told the head editor to support a specific political party in Germany. He talks about east Germans like they are lesser. And so much more…

In short, if your news is axel Springer, your news are trash

Well it depends on what you see as an acceptable cost of the benefits of social Media. You could easily find differences between platform, in their function and in their moderation. These differences might be valid reasons to give it a different evaluation.

But in case, you want to argue about whether or not Twitter is moral; and/or whether or not Facebook is as bad as Twitter, I am not interested in the discussion and my points weren’t made in support of the position that Twitter is harmful but only in “defense” of people voicing their moral evaluation of social Media.

I am not saying you are wrong, nor right, but I am wondering why you tell me/us that now, here.

Software is shipped with a license. There are licenses that are more or less ethical.

Well there is a difference between disliking something and believing it is actively harmful. If you believe it is actively harmful for humans and society, it makes sense that you want to appeal to the society as a whole. Then you need to reason for why you feel the way you do. And there we go.