I can't tell if it's a matter of direct calls for vigilantism being against the TOS*, or a matter of comfortable people seeing the potential to get caught up in

I can't tell if it's a matter of direct calls for vigilantism being against the TOS*, or a matter of comfortable people seeing the potential to get caught up in a shift towards that vigilantism, but flagged or not, I don't disagree with them. We allow for all kinds of preventative and punitive measures to be taken against people who cause harm to one, physically; I would argue that attacks on one's spiritual and intellectual well-being are similarly grievous. What the flagged comment calls for is, essentially, accountability for those who seek to deprive the public of cultural goods. You can go to jail for years for a single instance of robbery, and this is called accountability; but the law and norms say that to keep thousands from experiencing the enrichment of a particular piece of art, a substantive infringement of their human rights, deserves a six-figure salary. Civil disobedience is an ethical option. Many posters are Americans, where gun ownership (to protect oneself from others with guns), big trucks (to protect oneself from other with big vehicles), and MAD are accepted facts of life. Personal harassment that disincentivizes antisocial behavior isn't radical, it's evolutionary. *BTW, this is not one such direct call. It's a musing on its appropriateness. Feel free to rebut.