Not the person you were responding to, but IMO it’s the defense attorneys / legal department working to ensure that the legal outcome is as beneficial to the corporations as possible, even if they “lose”. In this case the fine is a cost of doing business, not nearly enough to actually discourage malfeasance and the legal/ PR pivot to blaming encryption rather than their algorithms is something they hope will tee them up to be able to do even more massive surveillance in the near future.

Not exactly what you meant, but the first thing that came to mind

https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Earth/The_Bees_Made_Honey_in_the_Lion’s_Skull/178274

In the context of print journalism, I definitely agree with you - having a clear account of the facts is a necessity for democracy. However, in the context of internet commentary and propaganda I think the practical constraints have to be weighed.

The right loves to Gish gallop, spewing out a steam of low quality arguments, lies, and misdirections. Countering each and every one of these blips with pear-review level journalism is not practical for most people.

It’s difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. Whether it’s a right wing propagandist, an AI bot, or a mentally unwell reactionary, you’re not likely to actually convince the ‘person’ you’re arguing with that you’re right, but generally speaking there are other, more receptive people reading the thread.

Online we’re always going to need meticulous fact checkers, but I think the rhetorical strategy for the average leftist should be more responsive. The focus should be on being correct about the core of whatever issue is being discussed and persuasive to a general audience. A piece like OP’s video is a good trade off in my view.