For TV it is not entirely true. In The Netherlands you can only get the 3 public broadcast channels that way (funded by government subsidies). In the case of paid platforms with multiple stakeholders operating on it, you could still be ‘the product’ in some of these relationships.
Phrasing as “Who’s the customer” is already different than “Free is evil”, but ensuring one is always the customer is still not a sufficient answer to the whole tech problem. I think that the massive scale and speed of information exchange also play a role. And with that human nature comes into play. Some rumour / fake news / disinformation spreads rapidly, and we are inclined to go with it. Especially if we perceive the person (maybe an influencer) who spread it as having authority / good reputation.
But the bumper sticker exercise is interesting. Maybe “Free is evil” does fit. But then you should enlarge the meaning of the word ‘free’ in the context. It is not only ‘free’ as in “free beer”. Freedom for any information to spread unchecked? Hmm, that’s a difficult one immediately. We come to ‘free’ as in “freedom of speech”. Does that mean censoring, limit to free speech? Terms of Services of any platform, and also the law itself places limits on free speech already: racism, hate speech, etc. Not allowed, and rightfully so. But with disinformation / propaganda / conspiracy theories, etc. things are not so clear.
After I watched the documentary I read this great article, which could be read as a follow-up problem analysis. I heartily recommend reading the referenced piece by @gctwnl The Manifesto of Society Centered Design