Thanks for the links! I wonder though, how do you determine if the reviewer is also planting a mind virus? Why value their perspective higher than your own experience when watching the movie yourself?

For example, I just read the Economist review, and it sounded to me like a lot of "whataboutism." Much of it seems to imply the documentary should have gone further and focus on the entire ad industry. That's huge and (IMO) far too big to "focus" on at all. Documentaries, to me, are entertainment. I don't look them for truth or wisdom, but for information I can think about and add to my collection as I determine my own perspectives. I think the movie accurately expressed other people's views. To me, that doesn't mean it justified those views as being accurate. I don't see that as the role of a documentary, but the role of the viewer to determine on their own. I actually liked how it questions in the integrity and motivations of the characters it profiled. It did so to a significant degree that I really appreciated, but this wasn't mentioned at all in the review (they actually implied the opposite!). Statements weren't made at face value (IMO), they were actually demonstrating different points of view and how even the people telling this story can't be trusted fully as moral or accurate actors in the play.

Also, the Economist review makes some assumptions about how aware most people are of what's going on and what happened with the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica story. My wife was barely aware. Most people are barely aware. I don't think this is beating a sick horse at all, but raising awareness in such a way to get people to think about things like online privacy.