Alright, let's imagine you have a big book where you write down all the things that happen on LinkedIn. You promised people that they could decide if their stuff goes into this book or not.

One day, you changed your mind and decided to put some people's stuff in the book without asking them first. But then, many people got upset because they didn't want their stuff in the book unless they said it was okay.

So now, LinkedIn is saying that they will only put people's stuff in the book if those people say it's okay first. They are also trying to say sorry for not asking before. That's what this story is about! Read from source...

Based on the provided text, here are some points of critique focusing on inconsistencies, potential biases, and illogical arguments:

1. **Inconsistencies in Tones and Styles**:
- The author jumps between formal (e.g., "The article's narrative...") and informal styles (e.g., "Some readers might argue that..."), which can be distracting.
- There are also sudden shifts in tone, from analytical ("The story is weakened by...") to anecdotal ("Imagine you're watching a documentary...").

2. **Potential Biases**:
- The author may have a bias towards certain types of storytelling or visual styles. For instance, they seem to favor realistic and emotionally resonant stories over more fantastical ones.
- They may also have a bias against certain genres or narrative structures (e.g., the "chosen one" trope).

3. **Illogical Arguments or Emotional Behavior**:
- The author states that "the chosen one" trope is overused and tired, but then uses it as an argument against several films in their analysis.
- They dismiss certain films without providing concrete reasons beyond personal preference (e.g., "I don't find them very compelling").
- Some of the author's reasoning seems to be based more on emotional responses than logical analysis. For example, they claim that a film's ending didn't work because it made them sad, rather than explaining why it might not have been narratively satisfying.

4. **Rhetorical Devices and Assumptions**:
- The author makes assumptions about the audience's knowledge of or agreement with certain film tropes. Not all readers may be familiar with or agree that a trope is overused or tired.
- They use rhetorical questions to engage the reader, but some of these questions could be seen as leading or assuming a particular response.

5. **Lack of Context**:
- The author doesn't provide much context about when these films were released, which can impact how their narratives and themes are received.
- They also don't consider how the films' intended audience might influence their storytelling choices.

Neutral

Explanation:

The article presents a factual report on the recent actions and statements from Microsoft-owned LinkedIn regarding its data collection policy changes without taking a clear stance or expressing sentiment. Here's why it's neutral:

1. **Factual Reporting**: The article primarily reports on the changes in LinkedIn's data collection policy and the public backlash, which is neither bearish nor bullish.
2. **No Opinionated Language**: There's no use of biased language that would sway the reader towards a positive or negative sentiment.
3. **Balance**: While it mentions the public backlash against LinkedIn, it also includes LinkedIn's response and doesn't dwell excessively on any one perspective.

However, there's a mention of LinkedIn's stock taking a slight dip today, which could be seen as a mildly bearish indicator. But this is presented as fact rather than used to express sentiment:

"...shares of the company fell slightly by 0.5%. (Microsoft owns LinkedIn.) ..."