If all of them were on board, then I have no issue. If some of them made the decision for others, then I have issue. Above I'm speaking in general, though. Movies and shows get pulled when an actor gets cancelled and those innocents dependent on the money aren't consulted and on board with losing their livelihoods.
Even then, bad person or not, he put his creative efforts into making videos that he had an expectation to continue making money on until audience interest naturally waned. *assuming the deal was structured that way.
Some of the videos that were removed had interviews with people who made guest appearances on CR. I remember there being an interview with Chris Perkins for example and who knows if they asked him before removing it. He doesn't strike me as the type who would object given the circumstances.
If it's just the one person who has money riding on the media, I have no problem with that person losing it. The host platform, be it youtube, Paramount or Tiktok has no obligation to keep hosting the content of the wrongdoer. To do so make them somewhat complicit. Sort of an accessory after the fact. Nor in my opinion do they have an obligation to allow someone else to host the content in violation of whatever contract or rights in the property that they have. Giving someone else the okay to host it is little better than hosting it yourself.
Which innocents are being punished here? Honest question, I'm not following.
In what version of ethics is this ethical?
In none of these cases is anyone profiting off harming someone else. If you really think they are maybe you can explain how?
Old CR shows exist either on paid access channels or ad supported channels. There is money involved
Right. Obviously that’s not the part I’m objecting to. You said profiting off of harm. You’ve failed to show the profit was off any harm. After harm yes! But not off of harm…
