Fact check: If a piece of content does not appeal to me, I am under no moral or ethical obligation to interact with it, or financially support it.

1. Summary of the results

The analyses broadly support the core premise of the statement. Consumer behavior data shows that individuals increasingly have extensive choice in their media consumption patterns ^[1], while legal and ethical frameworks support the right to make consumption choices based on personal values ^[2]. The concept of value-driven consumerism has become increasingly recognized as a legitimate form of expression ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are missing from the original statement:

• The statement overlooks the broader ecosystem of media creation and sustainability. The McKinsey Global Media Report highlights how the media landscape has evolved to become increasingly dependent on consumer engagement and support ^[1].
• The statement frames the issue purely as an individual choice, but modern content consumption exists within a larger framework of corporate boycotts and collective consumer action ^[3].
• There's a distinction between personal preference ("does not appeal to me") and ethical objections to content, which the original statement conflates. The legal and ethical frameworks for content moderation suggest these are different considerations with different implications ^[2].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

While the statement isn't necessarily misleading, it presents an oversimplified view of a complex issue:

• It frames the issue solely from the consumer perspective, without acknowledging the broader implications for content creators and platforms who depend on user engagement and financial support for survival ^[1].
• The statement's emphasis on individual choice overlooks the collective impact of consumer decisions. When many individuals make similar choices, it can amount to a form of collective action or boycott, which has broader societal implications ^[3].
• The use of "moral or ethical obligation" is particularly loaded, as legal and ethical frameworks suggest that while individuals have the right to choose their content consumption, there might be broader societal responsibilities to consider in how these choices are made ^[2].

Who benefits from this narrative:

• Content platforms and streaming services benefit from emphasizing consumer choice and personalization ^[1]
• Activist groups and organizations benefit from promoting the idea of value-driven consumerism as a form of protest ^[3]
• Individual consumers benefit from the emphasis on personal autonomy in content consumption choices ^[2]