I generally agree but there is a counterpoint that could be regarded, too: younger generations have different consumption habits than their predecessors and an effort to make art accessible to a new audience is IMHO a commendable effort.
Now, that is not an argument for the new HP show (I’d love to see that franchise go to ruins and the abyss of irrelevance together with its awful creator), just a general thought I have when talking about remakes, continuation, new adaptation etc.

Progressing technology and changing habits impact different media differently, and there is a general spectrum from books (or written storytelling, generally least affected) to video games (generally most affected). Especially the latter has gone through enormous changes over the last three decades alone and I often wish there were more actual remakes of older games I never got to play but really don’t feel like playing now because really outdated graphics and awkward controls are somewhat repelling.
And for movies and TV you can see a shift, too. I don’t think The Lord of the Rings would have been made today like it was in the early 2000s and some movies (often adapting other media, but that’s a different discussion) are already readapted into a more serialised storytelling for streaming instead of cinematic movies (e.g. Snowpiercer or Percy Jackson) while Disney is producing life action remakes of their animated catalogue.

That does not mean there is anything wrong with the source material, it just means a story is made accessible for a wider audience. Is the motivation for that a capitalism driven greed for money? Yes it is. Would these adaptations still happen in a world where artists would not be objected to monetary pressure? I do think so. Maybe not to the extend we see in our world, but maybe just with a different focus.

Again, nobody said that. You keep just making shit up.

And nobody denied that. The statement was “racism was normal in those days”, and not “the n-word wasn’t racist in those days”.

So the wiki screenshot displays a description of a meme. It is not a meme itself. I would not type a description of a meme into a .txt file, screenshot it and upload that screenshot into c/memes, because it’s not a meme.

Well, it’s not what I expect when I see “memes” in the community name, I guess.

That is one part. The other part is that Dawkin’s definition was flawed from the beginning, especially in regards to internet memes. Because memes do not actually behave like genes, there is no random mutation, there is no selection pressure, there is no survival of the fittest-kind of fight for lasting, sustained existence.
There is human intent behind every forwarding and sharing action, to every change, there are statements and meaning and a dadaistic approach every time a meme is created and altered.

The best summary of what a meme of modern understanding is I came across was “a recontextualising reproduction of a phenomenon (like pieces of media, certain motions, sounds, statements, etc…), usually with a certain intent (often humouristic and/or satirical).” Though that is just a rough summary, not a precise and conclusive definition.
There are, after all, still meme researchers trying to find an exact definition writing scientific articles on this topic. And they often are an interesting read.
However, none of these researchers and their attempts at defining a meme would say a simple screenshot of a Wikipedia passage or of a witty microblog post would suffice as a meme by itself.

How is an unaltered Wikipedia screenshot a meme exactly?

Where meme though?

I don’t know, I’m not really firm with quantum physics.

Isn’t every parent a trans parent then? You are not assigned parent at birth, you only transition into parenthood by reproducing (a process that also involves multiple hormonal changes).

No, I think it’s just some Nice Guys™ discovering a new platform.

Pointless rule. Everything is politics.