Wait, first the problem is that it's poorly-made, then the problem is that it's really good at what it does (but it's supposedly bad at it), then the problem is

Wait, first the problem is that it's poorly-made, then the problem is that it's really good at what it does (but it's supposedly bad at it), then the problem is that it was way too easy to make something that effective? These all seem like mutually exclusive criticisms (still lacking in substantiation). Which one is it? Also, even if you granted all of the above concerns, what business is it of anyone's if they choose not to have to listen to people? Right of association, and all. If it's really as damaging as you claim, either people will see that (and stop), or they won't. p.s. 'hugbox' is a pretty amazingly offensive term, especially on a community site which has generally shown broad support for neuro-diversity, and I don't think it honors the community guideline to "Be civil".