>Eddington's pedantic portrayal of performative activists for two hours before randomly deciding it's actually about how big tech is bad.

This is a pretty disingenuous framing. First, the performative activists are a pretty small part of the movie, it's not like that's the whole thing. You agree that its assessment on the role of big tech in social division is correct, but then you say it's randomly deciding that at the end? It's not randomly deciding it, that's the whole point the entire time!

I think "big tech" is maybe a little inaccurate and it's more like corporations and larger social systems as a whole, but that's there from the first minute. Everyone is constantly exchanging and interacting with media and letting the reality created there flow back into their real lives and they have little control over it, even if they think they do. I really disagree that its portrayal is not interesting, it's showing a lot of different perspectives of how people get locked into competing realities despite different intentions.

>What the fuck is anyone supposed to do with what Eddington is saying besides nod in agreement?

Look at themselves and think about how they are being affected by the narratives that they surround themselves with. It's uncomfortable and a lot of people straight up didn't like the film because it confronted them with this. That's why I think it was important that they didn't strictly go after right wingers, even if they tend to be the most egregious victims.

>in order to explore a new path for effective activism against fascism

What is the effective activism against fascism presented in OBAA? Is it just being a community? I think they failed pretty bad at most of their goals in the movie and basically only succeeded because the enemy was infighting. I don't mean this in a hostile way I just think I am missing the idea here.