We generate electrical power, we build an electrically driven civilization of phenomenal wealth and possibility - while damaging our environment and killing people with the pollution. That too is a side effect, but it doesn't make it any less significant to the affected parties - dead is dead, after all. However, correctly identifying the problem can make it easier to identify a solution: knowing the electric utilities aren't intentionally murdering people, we aren't inclined to pursue such ineffective solutions as shutting them all down and sending their owners to prison - a strategy whose most likely outcome would be to discourage innovation and investment. Instead, we'll try scrubbers, alternate power sources, and other such options.

The question you aren't answering is, "wake up and do what?" I provided alternate scenarios. They aren't necessarily all the options, but they're a good example of the range available. Ball's in your court. Do we assume the media giants are profit-minded folks who don't really understand - or perhaps don't care - what impact their proposal will have on internet culture so long as the bucks keep flowing in, and then base our solution on that assumption? Or do we assume the media giants are - against all logic - taking risks with their very profitable cash cow (at this late date) in an effort to serve the propaganda needs of some secret master class, and then base solutions on that assumption?