This journalist seems outraged that Netflix is hosting non-factual content. Hard to comport this with 90% of the content on the platform, which is clearly non-factual.

In any case, Hancock is presenting a theory, to which there may well be elements of interest to merit further investigation. As for 'Big Archaeology' - entrenched interests prepared to defend privilege is a standard characteristic of any type of gated social organisation, it is not a crazy conspiracy to point this out.

Is there a pretence of factuality without a disclaimer? Is it filed under drama?

I don't think making a case for something is the same as pretending something to be true, which implies you know that it isn't and are lying about it.

If it was labeled in some way it would be nicer.

Like when climate deniers come on a show if that show said 99.9% of climate science does not agree with this view. Instead it is usually 1 climate scientist and one idiot which is really not even close to the real distribution.

Given that Jordan Peterson and Rogan are mentioned it should go without saying that the content is made up or not factual.

It will probably still be fun to watch.

an interesting question of the labelling - i wonder what Netflix policy is on this, particularly with documentaries like Dahmer series etc being so popular. I think we might find there isn't a hard line to draw between fact vs fiction, it's a spectrum

Instead of instilling critical thinking skills in people is easier just to label things as dangerous. This is the path to good speak.

“Why has this been allowed?”

Another “journalist” struggling to understand why any thought, topic, or piece of content that they haven’t personally blessed has made its way into the public psyche.

No, he explains it's eggregiously false. His blessing is not required or requested. Just expressing bafflement that nobody along the production path thought there was anything wrong with this piece of shit.