I don't think it's necessary for me to counter everything they're saying. They're making a unilateral judgement - as long as I can demonstrate a good counter for one part of it, the unilateral judgement will fail to hold.

They can of course still argue that it's majority-bad for whatever list of reasons, but that's not what bugs me. What bugs me is the absolute tunnel vision of "for principled reasons I must find this thing completely and utterly bad, no matter what". Because this is what the title, and the tone, and just about everything else in this article comes across as to me, and I find it equal parts terrifying and disagreeable.