The harms you've mentioned are not disputed by anyone. They are known and valid and not limited to one saviour on the planet.
But why do you have start with:
How can you say the one sharing it is an idiot? Here are some suitable and more accurate words that will protect you from sins you can use: unwary, uneducated, ignorant, naive, clueless.
I realised you called the victims unwary but not the one who shared it? You cannot possibly know the intentions. See the difference yourself:
"An uneducated person will share the opening scene, that will cause unwary Muslims to get hooked on to it."- no harm done and educating would be possible. Call the person an idiot and the argument will be about why the person is not an idiot. That to me is idiotic.
The one sharing it might think they're doing good. Sahaaba also did things they thought were good (with good intentions) only to be corrected by the Prophet or even the Ameer after the Prohet 's time showing dislike, turning away, walking away, anger showing etc. Would you call those Sahaabah "idiots" - This language is the precise reason half the disputes take place because the actual message is ignored after.
The rest of your post was actually spot on but it was tainted with the first sentence and partially with the last.