'Fictional' Zoos?

I have some sympathy with aspects of Martha Gill's complaints about zoos. She rather broadly claims that, rather than being 'educational', they 'construct fictions about their captives' (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/22/zoos-are-opposite-of-educational-they-construct-fictions-about-animals). There are, however, zoos and there are 'zoos'. Such establishments exhibit an enormous range of sophistication and expertise. There's no doubt it's very difficult to humanely keep some large animals in captivity. This is especially the case for beasties that naturally operate in large groups and/or have large ranges. The actual space for species even in consortia of zoos is very limited. I'm distinctly, however, unimpressed by Gill's cited sources of opinion on how wild animals feel about their 'unfree' circumstances, as well as the lack of success of captive breeding programmes. Living in 'the wild' can be quite an unpleasant and is a distinctly life-limiting experience for many animals. There are also some species that would now be long extinct, except for the intervention of captive breeding programmes. I do think it's important that (especially urban) folk get opportunities to see other species of animals close up. One could also argue that cinema and TV treatments of 'wild' animals can also sometimes be uneducational. These 'stories' are also shot to a script. This is fine, so long as the script is accurate (this is certainly not always the case). Even behaviour in protected 'conservation areas' is often constrained by the area's limits and/or interactions with humans on its boundaries. In conversation areas, it's still humans deciding which species need protection. Awareness that other species also have requirements and that space should be left for them, is not something I would like to see discouraged. A zoo can, I feel, often do this better than relying on soft toys and children's books.