The very aggressive bits are linked to articles supposedly backing their point with more substance, but those are same level think pieces who reference other think pieces who are based on misconceptions, and we never hit any solid ground.
For instance:
> The videos are in autoplay and shown in an endless scroll. These are features known for triggering addictive behavior and there were legislative plans in the United States to ban them.
Following “triggering addictive behavior” goes to thenextweb.com’s rant on autoplay.
which posits autoplay is “hijacking your thought process”, with a link to a medium post
Which on autoplay, explains that “Another way to hijack people is to keep them consuming things, even when they aren’t hungry anymore”, linking that analysis on the age old debunked Brian Wansink‘s bowl of cereal experiment.
So many other of these very assertive declarations have 3 to 5 levels of redirection to finally hit some disappointing justification. The general message being vaguely consensual, it’s hard to see what this piece is actually bringing to the table.