I like the notion, but I don't think there's a simple "age / 2 + 7" rule that applies here as I think this sort of stuff should be dealt with on a case-by-case

I like the notion, but I don't think there's a simple "age / 2 + 7" rule that applies here as I think this sort of stuff should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I think it's all about personal responsibility for everyone involved. Content creator, and audience. I think that creators (even just posting comments) have responsibility to keep their noses clean or suffer potential consequences, and I think that the audience has a responsibility to think about circumstances like this objectively. There was social support for Carson from every type of person you can imagine. Young, old, left, right, every race, etc. When presented with the facts, everyone jumped on Carson's side. We saw it for what it was: a character assassination that had nothing to do with the actual story at-hand. Aaron, and the DSM Register alike ("content creators"), wanted the controversy or they wouldn't be digging that far back on someone and/or including something this irrelevant in their story. When you operate this way it's bound to backfire at some point. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. The "audience" looked at this and almost unanimously decided that the DSM Register and Aaron's actions were reprehensible. These entities took a cheap shot at someone who is objectively putting good into this world and paid a real price in subscriber numbers and employment. I don't have any pity for either of them.