If you still have problems, examine your own bias. No one after consulting a dictionary, can suggest in good faith, that the statement "It's good enough" (which is entirely and completely about quality), can be derived in good faith, from a statement that doesn't make any mention of quality at all. This was a deliberate lie and you should accept that.

I hope that I don't offend you if I note that your accusing me of acting in bad faith isn't going to keep me up at night, especially since you're twisting yourself around to make the accusation. I've explained why I think it was fine and won't repeat that since you either (a) don't find my reasoning compelling, (b) didn't read it, or (c) lack sufficient faculties to understand it. I assume (a), but fail to rule out (c).

If you want to talk about my bias, sure, let's go there: I like Kurzgesagt. I'm an educator and have used their videos. I have no beef with them, and I think that leaving those videos up was, at best, a 2/10 on the "YouTube sins" scale. But I find their behavior here repulsive: they got tipped off to the fact that someone was going to point out that some of their older videos are scientifically invalid and that same person was told that they were staying up (...in essence, one might say they were "good enough" but I digress). Then they proactively post a video patting themselves on the back for asking themselves these tough questions when they were, in fact, asked them by a smaller channel. That's shady as fuck, and I think it's idiotic to defend them. I'll still watch them, because it's not like they were murdering orphans, but if we can't acknowledge when people we like behave badly then that's a problem.

But sure, let's talk about bias affecting our reasoning:

Yeah, hit pieces have a tendency of changing the situation and thus, actions change to adapt to a changing situation.

...you do realize that they took the video down a solid week plus before Coffee Break's, right? That explanation makes no sense.