[komali2]

I don't think this comment is internally consistent. I don't see any difference between "using the existing mechanism to promote a law" and "shouting down others to promote a law."

It sounds like your biggest priority in determining ethicality is legality: did anything illegal happen in the "cancellation" of the Brave founder? (I know nothing about this event, I'm just commenting within the context of this short conversation).

If not, how then are you determining one method being better than another?

[lelanthran]

> I don't think this comment is internally consistent. I don't see any difference between "using the existing mechanism to promote a law" and "shouting down others to promote a law."

If there is a legal and approved method for getting a law, why is forming a mob the same as using the official method?

[komali2]

Forming a mob is also called protesting, and many of the laws that define our society were written after popular protests.

I'm actually not even sure anymore what you mean by "legal and approved method for getting a law." Maybe you're talking about how some places like California have a process for petition > law proposition > law being put directly on the ballot? Not all states have that and as far as I know the usa congress has nothing like that. In fact when it comes to federal law the only way I'm aware of for citizens to get a law they want in the end always comes down to some kind of mob formation.

Anyway the meaning of the word "official" matters as well. The USA's founding documents state an intent that the authority of the government derives from the people. There's thus no difference between a government's rubber stamped "official process," and a crowd of people in city hall shouting.