When will New York Times point their Eye of Sauron against the things that you enjoy? They have no business spreading their version of "morality" lest it become

When will New York Times point their Eye of Sauron against the things that you enjoy? They have no business spreading their version of "morality" lest it become a slippery slope into a new religion. Facebook is an ad company. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. And even if they target you with ads, who cares? After decades of people saying "I don't notice the ads on web sites" all of a sudden web ads have the ability to take down countries? Don't dress it up as a "moral" issue, and plus, whose morality is the one judging this? If you pick at every single company, you can find things that give you a "moral duty" to leave. How far will they go? Love video games? It encourages violence and gambling, you have a moral duty to leave. Do you have moral duty to not use Amazon anymore because they don't treat their workers the way the NYT wants them to be treated? Love muscle cars? It kills the environment with pollution, you have a moral duty to leave. Love cooking? Why aren't you feeding the homeless instead, you have a moral duty to do that instead of wasting money on fancy food.