Critical Role Critical Role removes hundreds of YouTube videos and podcast episodes.

[Shardstone]

I feel like how minorly inconvenienced we are by this situation is so minuscule in comparison to the actual issue being addressed as to not warrant -- to the point of being insensitive-- being in the same conversation.

It's just not very fun to talk about a woman being beaten, abused, and extorted for a huge amount of money. I'd much rather talk about how this effects ME

 

[FrogReaver]

It's just not very fun to talk about a woman being beaten, abused, and extorted for a huge amount of money. I'd much rather talk about how this effects ME

Your sarcasm aside, you aren’t actually listening to others if that’s your take on their position.

 

[Shardstone]

Your sarcasm aside, you aren’t actually listening to others if that’s your take on their position.

I have no take.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don’t find any of those analogies particularly compelling.

Dude did bad. Really bad! Kick him off the show. Keep him away from Johnson. We all agree with those decisions.

Can you articulate the harm that comes to Johnson from leaving previously recorded content with bad dude in it available to fans of the show?

I can articulate other reasons the show may wish to remove that content and as someone said it’s their ‘right’ as they ‘own’ it. But harm to Johnson doesn’t seem compelling for a reason for it.

That said, just because they have the right to remove the content, doesn’t mean they should. For example, I could be an absolute butthole to everyone, that’s my ‘right’ but it doesn’t make doing so right. It doesn’t mean I should.

She is part of the production team and likely involved in some way with the maintenance and curation of their site and social media are the very lease, surface interaction where thumbnails and gifs of her abuser would be constantly presented to her.

She is part of the cast in a group that engages regularly with the fandom. She will be confronted with images, quotes, and discussion from fans. And while the critter community is more sensitive than most, that wouldn't stop newcomers to happen upon, say Honey Heist and innocently ask about that particular player or their character in that game.

And finally and more importantly, we are not her or one of her friends to whom this content belongs and have no business, not a single iota of an atom in a multiverse of business telling them they're wrong for not subjecting her to that or to not decide they don't want to platform, acknowledge or provide spotlight for her abuser.

Is that enough? Or do we need more reasons not to chastise and abuse victim and their supporters for deciding not to continue giving us a sliver of the vast gallery of free content they've provided?

 

[Clint_L]

I don’t find any of those analogies particularly compelling.

Dude did bad. Really bad! Kick him off the show. Keep him away from Johnson. We all agree with those decisions.

Can you articulate the harm that comes to Johnson from leaving previously recorded content with bad dude in it available to fans of the show?

I don't need to. Ashley Johnson and her colleagues owned the content, and the is their call to make.

I could certainly speculate as to why I, in her position, might not wish to continue to reminded of him, or give him money. You've never heard of an abuse survivor needing to get rid of all reminders of their abuse? Let alone keep paying their abuser?

Seems kind of obvious. But even if it wasn't, it's her stuff and she can do what she wants to with it.

 

[Velderan]

First and foremost, as others have said Ashley's well-being is far more important than anything else here.

Second, was he the jerk who liked to retweet people criticizing CR and get his followers to bully them?

I haven't seen this mentioned here or maybe I missed it, but I wonder if they owe him revenue based on money earned from content he was in. Removing the content may partially be about cutting out any future dealings with him.

 

[Sacrosanct]

She is part of the cast in a group that engages regularly with the fandom. She will be confronted with images, quotes, and discussion from fans. And while the critter community is more sensitive than most, that wouldn't stop newcomers to happen upon, say Honey Heist and innocently ask about that particular player or their character in that game.

I could certainly speculate as to why I, in her position, might not wish to continue to reminded of him, or give him money. You've never heard of an abuse survivor needing to get rid of all reminders of their abuse? Let alone keep paying their abuser?

I don't know if anyone's overtly said this, but it's starting to feel like an argument is being made that inconvenience to strangers/fans is more important than the well-being, safety, and health of a person (even if she wasn't one of the faces of the franchise, so-to-speak.)

I have a real problem with that. Victims being confronted with their abuser often has a very real and destructive effect. By confront, I don't mean forced to talk with them, I'm talking about just see them or being asked about them. I don't know Ashely, but if I were part of that group, the first thing I'd do is ask her if she wanted references to him removed. And if she said yes, I'd do it without question and not even consider what fans might think. Why? Because she's a person who deserves to be treated with respect. Presumably she's friends with the others, and I care about my friends a lot more than I care about fans on the internet.

Whether or not it's our business shouldn't even matter. It's about treating people with respect above all else, and I can't see any justification to keep his videos around if it's harming another person. Full stop.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't need to. Ashley Johnson and her colleagues owned the content, and the is their call to make.

Never in dispute so I’m not sure why this gets repeatedly brought up. The ethics around it are in dispute though.

I could certainly speculate as to why I, in her position, might not wish to continue to reminded of him, or give him money. You've never heard of an abuse survivor needing to get rid of all reminders of their abuse?

Whats not clear is why leaving up a bit of YouTube content that she doesn’t have to interact with at all would remind her of him.

 

[FrogReaver]

First and foremost, as others have said Ashley's well-being is far more important than anything else here.

Agreed

Second, was he the jerk who liked to retweet people criticizing CR and get his followers to bully them?

I haven't seen this mentioned here or maybe I missed it, but I wonder if they owe him revenue based on money earned from content he was in. Removing the content may partially be about cutting out any future dealings with him.

That’s my guess too. But that seems more retributive than about Ashley’s well being?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The ethics around it are in dispute though.

They absolutely are not.

Whats not clear is why leaving up a bit of YouTube content that she doesn’t have to interact with at all would remind her of him.

It's not your content and an abused person doesn't need to justify her actions to you.