In the context provided, "legit" meant that it was a company properly founded and operating within regulations. It said nothing about the partisan opinions about the products it produces.
It's like saying that RJ Reynolds is not legit because people don't like smoking (or Joe Camel), or that Budweiser is not legit because people don't like drinking, or that Smith & Wesson is not legit because people don't like guns.
-PJ
DUMP THIS WHOLE FREAKING THING!
NOW!!!
DISMISS THIS UTTER NON-CASE!!!
Or Planned Parenthood because some people think abortion on demand is wrong? Also remember what was legal in the 19th century. OK, maybe what CNN does is technically legal most of the time? We can agree on that. CNN is not MS-13. I will also agree that we could not have a viable legal framework based on 300 million individual opinions of right and wrong. While I admit that Crowdstrike has not been proven to have committed crimes, I believe it has played a key role in a despicable act, and maybe the people who work there are not aware of it.