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

[FrogReaver]

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

Not to me specifically no. Ethically they do need justification though.

 

[bedir than]

Not to me specifically no. Ethically they do need justification though.

The ethics of "This person did me harm they can no longer make money off of me" are pretty clear

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Not to me specifically no. Ethically they do need justification though.

Whom do they have an ethical obligation to?

This reads very much like you trying to come up with another way of saying "Critical Role shouldn't be inconveniencing FrogReaver, the true injured party" without having to say exactly that.

 

[FrogReaver]

The ethics of "This person did me harm they can no longer make money off of me" are pretty clear

How exactly would leaving the videos up on CR YouTube be, ‘the abuser making money off the abused’?

 

[FrogReaver]

Whom do they have an ethical obligation to?

All people.

This reads very much like you trying to come up with another way of saying "Critical Role shouldn't be inconveniencing FrogReaver, the true injured party" without having to say exactly that.

I don’t even watch CR. Probly never will. So no inconvenience to me. I’m here solely about the ethical considerations.

 

[Velderan]

How exactly would leaving the videos up on CR YouTube be, ‘the abuser making money off the abused’?

As I mentioned above, we have no idea what the financial arrangement is for content he's in. Aside from that, it allows him to continue to associate himself with an incredibly valuable media property which certainly allows him a path to make money somehow.

 

[FrogReaver]

As I mentioned above, we have no idea what the financial arrangement is for content he's in. Aside from that, it allows him to continue to associate himself with an incredibly valuable media property which certainly allows him a path to make money somehow.

I’m with you in assuming the financial agreement would have critical role, not Johnson pay him something for revenue brought in via those videos. Even if not specifically true in this case it makes for a better ethical question.

I think he can continue to associate himself with the CR regardless? Former CR, his name.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not to me specifically no. Ethically they do need justification though.

The ethics of deciding not to continue too host content that could retraumatize their friend or support their abuser literally for the internet's amusement?

The ethics of creators who have miraculously for this day and age still have control of their own work to exercise control of their work?

Or the ethics of fandoms feeling that the people and media they are fans of are things they own and should be of control of into perpetuity against the wills of the actual creators.

This discussion would have a leg to stand on if it were some corp that only owns CR via contract removing stuff because they think it would cost them money, but this is people protecting their friend from a piece of their communal creation that has grown toxic and hurtful.

 

[Maxperson]

As I mentioned above, we have no idea what the financial arrangement is for content he's in. Aside from that, it allows him to continue to associate himself with an incredibly valuable media property which certainly allows him a path to make money somehow.

In general I have never been a fan of "Remove the content so we can punish 1 person while also punishing several innocent people who also need money from that content." If it were only that one person, then fine. But if you're depriving people who didn't do anything wrong of income(and who might depend on it to stay in their homes or eat) so that you can get at one wrongdoer, that seems morally and ethically wrong. Punish him another way.

I have no idea if this is the case here, but it seems likely that in group content if he is getting money, so are innocent others.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

In general I have never been a fan of "Remove the content so we can punish 1 person while also punishing several innocent people who also need money from that content." If it were only that one person, then fine. But if you're depriving people who didn't do anything wrong of income(and who might depend on it to stay in their homes or eat) so that you can get at one wrongdoer, that seems morally and ethically wrong. Punish him another way.

I have no idea if this is the case here, but it seems likely that in group content if he is getting money, so are innocent others.

Those are the people who made this decision.