Sure — but “morally” is doing a lot of lifting here.

You’re framing media as a kind of moral shepherd, and the audience as sheep needing to be steered. That’s a top-down, almost sermon-like view of what art or communication is for. But media isn’t a one-way channel for delivering moral upgrades; it’s a space of negotiation, ambiguity, and mutual curiosity. In a decentralized landscape, authority isn’t supposed to be granted by default. There’s no pulpit, no captive audience. Refusing to meet the world halfway in this context risks not steering anyone anywhere — it just makes you inaudible.

And again, morally is doing a lot of lifting. In decentralized media, “morally better” is not a fixed north star — it’s a contested terrain. If you’re not engaging in that messiness, in the polyphony of perspectives, you’re not guiding; you’re just broadcasting into the void and calling it a mission.

If crypto wants to disrupt, it needs to rebalance. Hollywood/modern media is the perfect place to start because it is so one-sided. 

Not because its 'too liberal' or even because its 'top-down', it's because the loudest people (streaming and studio heads) struggle to understand the gravity of each decision they make. 

Crypto has the balance mechanisms to give more power to the audience to find better actors, writers, directors, etc... Isn't that what crypto aspires too? To give chance to voices that would otherwise be overlooked in the late-stage analog world?