My view would be that most people can tell the differnce between entertainment and the world they live in and most do the right thing in life. Maybe it's different where you live.

It's not about neighborhoods or local differences—people everywhere are subject to the same influences, especially in the age of global media. My point isn't really that viewers don't understand the difference between good and evil or confuse entertainment with reality in the literal sense. I'm talking about a more subtle, subconscious level of behavioral normalization.

Take your example of the difference between screen and real life: yes, most people won't start cooking meth after watching Breaking Bad. But the show (and others like it) introduces into cultural discourse the idea that morality isn't absolute, but a matter of risk calculation. As I've written before, the message is: "If you're smart, prudent, and creative enough, you can bend the rules—law, ethics, society—and prosper until chance intervenes."

It's similar to the smoking example: the question "Should I smoke or not?" doesn't even arise if you've never seen anyone smoking and didn't know it was possible. Media expands the "horizon of the possible": they don't force us to directly emulate evil, but they sow the seeds of doubt—"What if I, too, could do anything if I outsmarted the system?" Ultimately, this shifts society's moral boundaries: instead of "This is wrong," we more often think, "This is risky, but if I don't get caught..." And this isn't about "bad" people, but about how culture shapes our questions and choices.

The horizon of the possible has truly expanded. In the 90s, a person who wanted money and respect had three culturally approved paths: education → career, sports/show business, or honest business. Today, a 16-year-old from any suburb has five to seven paths in mind, and two of them are "gray internet schemes" and "crypto scams/dropshipping/onlyfans." He doesn't consider this evil—he considers it the fourth and fifth elevators to the top, simply demonstrated by Netflix and TikTok.

The main trick isn't glorifying evil, but removing shame.

Walter White shows that shame is for suckers. Once shame dies, morality turns into a simple risk calculation. That's why the phrase "if you're smart enough, you can do anything" isn't an exaggeration; it's the precise formula for a new moral code.

I’m not really sure I see the issue. Storytelling (set aside media) has always promoted the extension of our choices and options. One of the first novels, Don Quixote satirises this by demonstrating some absurd outcomes.

What does BB do that Shakespeare or Hollywood or Bret Easton Ellis haven’t done?

They showed a madman and warned: "Don't be like him."
B.B. shows a madman and whispers: "Be like him, only smarter—and everything will be fine."

Ok. Maybe you’re an optimist then. Firstly, I think this is entertainment and it doesn’t have an ultimate moral. But if I had to provide a reading, it looks to me like this: if you turn to crime, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, how clever your plans; or how methodical you are, your life will become a living hell; you will be hollowed out on the inside, estranged from everyone you love, and you will die scorned and alone.

I sincerely sympathize with your way of thinking. Moreover, I assure you that I hold similar views regarding such shows.

The problem is probably something else: I read a few naive books and decided I could philosophize. Don't take the latest town madman seriously.