I think this article is a prime example of the things I hate about advocacy journalism.

It's clear that the journalist started with a narrative in their head - the second sentence is "It's a creepy concept that cues an avalanche of questions". I don't think pursuing an agenda is bad per se, but it's not really reporting work, and I think it must follow different rules - specifically, it needs to have argumentation for its assertions, provide evidence for factual claims, and analyze alternate explanations.

> "I think we know enough about human psychology that if you can get yourself to mistreat a very lifelike, human-like thing, then it's probably just good rehearsal to doing that to a real human," Pizarro added.

The quote from the "expert" is illustrative - it is an appeal to authority with no further investigation, no sources to back it up, etc. While that might be the standard formula for a news report, it's not enough for an argumentative article. Is David Pizarro a leading scientist on this subject, does he have publications and research to link to? Who knows, it's not presented in the article.

There's a pathetic attempt at presenting the "counter-argument" but the link is to a site that is debunking it(and also advancing the same narrative) - this doesn't give me much confidence that the counter-argument was presented fairly and not just straw-manned.

The proliferation of sex dolls and sex dolls brothels may be an interesting topic worthy of a discussion. "The previous Mic article" hints to one interesting issue: "When I tried to find a sex robot for straight women online, options were scarce." However, it then immediately tries to shoehorn the discussion into the narrative with an 'explanation': "That is likely because not only is the tech industry dominated by men, but also because companies founded by men are more likely to get funding. " (How about the 'likely' explanation that women aren't looking for sex dolls? How would that not possibly cross your mind?)

This article and the ones it links to are just poorly written agenda pushing. They are what you would look for in an evangelism blog, a strongly opinionated presentation with very little research and argumentation, no thought put into alternate possibilities.

The big question that pops up in my mind is, "of what use is this to me"? I don't know who Claire Lampen is, why I should respect and value her opinions. She doesn't really present any serious argumentation for her position. She doesn't even seem to be concerned with the actual consumers who are seeking out this product, just how this will "negatively affect women"...which reminds me of this quote from Hillary Clinton:

"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat..."

It's hard to take the pleas for subscriptions from magazines and "newspapers" such as this one seriously. With this kind of low-effort advocacy journalism, Mic competes with every opinionated blog on the subject, and it will always come short - I can at least develop some kind of emotional connection and relationship with a blog writer by following their writings; the online "news media" still treats them mostly as replaceable cogs.