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

[Vaalingrade]

In none of these cases is anyone profiting off harming someone else. If you really think they are maybe you can explain how?

Already did.

Now please provide justification for insisting that anything short of putting the onus on them to make sure everything they've ever made MUST be kept available somewhere is unethical. Or someone anyone here that has to right to demand that of them.

 

[Clint_L]

Frogreaver, is this really the hill you want to die on? This isn't a hypothetical argument, it's a pretty well documented case of terrible abuse. The victim, with her partners, owns the media involved and it is 100% their right to decide what to do with it. I don't think anyone sees a serious ethical problem here.

But the bottom line is that you are driving the discussion towards an argument about Ashely Johnson's ethics. Which I find extremely distasteful in the circumstances. Pick your battles, my friend!

 

[FrogReaver]

Already did.

Now please provide justification for insisting that anything short of putting the onus on them to make sure everything they've ever made MUST be kept available somewhere is unethical. Or someone anyone here that has to right to demand that of them.

1) I’m not going to engage with comments like ‘already did’. Best case is I say no you didn’t and then we get in a pointless back and forth. If you want to engage in convo then I need something I can actually productively engage with.

I’m also not making the argument you listed so I won’t be providing justification for it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Frogreaver, is this really the hill you want to die on? This isn't a hypothetical argument, it's a pretty well documented case of terrible abuse. The victim, with her partners, owns the media involved and it is 100% their right to decide what to do with it. I don't think anyone sees a serious ethical problem here.

I agree it is terrible abuse. I agree they own it and ‘can’ do what they want with it. The point I’m bringing up is about what they should do with it. It’s not the end of the world either way, but we can have different opinions and discuss or maybe not as there’s an awful lot of factually incorrect but highly charged moral language being thrown my way. Like even the ‘is this the hill you are going ti die on’ comment was a bit over the top.

But the bottom line is that you are driving the discussion towards an argument about Ashely Johnson's ethics. Which I find extremely distasteful in the circumstances. Pick your battles, my friend!

Fine practical advice and it’s okay you find it distasteful. I’ll add this, whether it’s right or wrong, what’s happening is understandable and relatable and maybe sometimes that’s more important.

 

[Morrus]

Ooooookay.... a big pile of thread reports. We are going to DROP the 'ethics' discussion right now, please. It's going in an unpleasant direction, and CR and anybody else can do whatever the heck they like with their own couch, their own bicycles, or their own videos.

 

[Maxperson]

Which innocents are being punished here? Honest question, I'm not following.

Edit: Never Mind. Just saw the mod post.

 

[CubicsRube]

I think it's really important to note that this action, like proper forms of justice also helps prevent future cases of a similar nature helping, albeit it just slightly.

If enough decision makers in the industry take action against abusers it sends a message that the behaviour is not welcomed. This hopefully reduces that amount of abuse others suffer in the future.

For a social media personality or an actor, having most of their content removed is probably a big fear, so hopefully this helps not only Ashley and CR in the long run, but other potential victims.

EDIT: spelling

 

[billd91]

For a social media personality or an actor, having most of their content removed is probably a big fear, so hopefully this helps not only Ashley and CR in the long run, but other potential victims.

And Critical Role does not have to continue to give him a platform for his content, even past content.

 

[Lanefan]

Sometimes I wish people would read what I typed rather than what they think I typed. I'm not arguing that physical is superior. I abandoned my record player for the casette, my cassette for the CD, and then my CD for digital. Like most technology, digital it has its advantages and its disadvantages and I would argue the former outweighs the latter.

Where I say physical IS superior, for just this very reason - it can't be deleted by someone else's decision.

That physical (other than actual books) tends to degrade over time is another problem, one I wish they'd solve somehow.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

The counter - and IMO bigger - issue revolves around public history (of which anything posted online immediately becomes a part), and the questions around erasing or painting over or altering/revising that history.