Originally Posted by
JonNYC
No they don't.
That's something that perhaps reasonable people can disagree with - moral obligations are, by definition, based on one's own code of morals. But it's hardly a radical opinion that people who have platforms in media should use them for things other than their personal gain. It sounds trite, but I've taken to heart something a teacher wrote in my high school yearbook 20 years ago, "From those whom much is given, much is expected."
GUWonder, you are really setting up a strawman here, and ignoring my point. ONCE BEN MADE THE DELIBERATE DECISION TO POST ABOUT CENSORSHIP IN THE UAE, it is nowhere close to the suggestion about talking about airlines based in Georgia and an obligation to post about unrelated issues.
The more apt comparison would be if a blogger were to make a post about the death penalty in Texas, and without saying anything critical about it, made a joke "hope I don't get electrocuted when I drop by the United Club!"
I would consider that person to be amoral.
As for the suggestion that I am a bully for critiquing a public blog post for making light of the repression of free speech, that's kind of inane. Really, that's an insult to real victims of bullying. If anything, you're bullying me for daring to critique a public, commercial post and suggesting that businesses should be held to a standard of corporate responsibility. Holding Ben accountable for his public acts with pretty well-thought-out reasons that you happen to disagree with isn't "bullying," snowflake.
Raffles, Ben could not support his lifestyle on $100k in revenue per year. (Putting aside that the links in old content don't stay good forever, and 5/24 plus market saturation contradict this theory.)