At the beginning of an article you told an outright lie. Later you equivocate. The idea that a lie stops being a lie because of the number of words you say la

At the beginning of an article you told an outright lie. Later you equivocate. The idea that a lie stops being a lie because of the number of words you say later is obviously absurd. As I have pointed out this is a motte and Bailey fallacy. Also, it’s still a completely misleading statement. The change to ‘similar to’ doesn’t make it true. It still isn’t true, only now you have some wiggle room to claim it’s not a lie. You are still trying to misleading people into thinking that NFTs confer ownership of the media.