Technolarp has publicly admitted that he never received permission. Technodad says he has been contacted several times, has avoided answering because he does not know how to react, wants some peace, and remains “inconclusive.” Inconclusive is not consent. Continuing anyway reverses the ethical burden. It forces a bereaved father to either bless an ongoing imitation of his son or become the person who shuts down a channel after roughly 190,000 fans have attached themselves to it. That is a consent trap created by building the audience first and asking for approval later. A fan poll cannot authorize the use of Alex’s identity. Fans do not own his voice, persona, branding or relationships. A future promise to give 50% to charity may benefit a good cause, but charity changes where some money goes. It does not create permission. The channel has already gained substantial private value from imitating Alex, even with AdSense disabled. Technolarp’s older channel has roughly 2,600 subscribers. The impersonation channel reached about 190,000 in five weeks. That does not prove malicious intent, but it plainly shows where the momentum came from. This is also different from fan art or a one-off impression. It is an ongoing first-person performance, marketed with language such as “He’s back in spirit,” that copies Alex’s voice, mannerisms, Minecraft appearance and video concepts while interacting with people who knew him. He may sincerely believe he is paying tribute. Sincerity does not supply consent. The responsible move is to pause, stop placing this decision on Technodad, and either obtain explicit written approval with clear limits or transition the channel toward his own identity. Do not harass him. But stop pretending that charity makes the consent problem disappear. A tribute remembers someone. It should not turn that person into somebody else’s growth strategy.

Some Elvis or Michael Jackson impersonators probably perform without permission. That only proves the practice exists, not that every use is ethical. They are also usually presented as tribute acts in a limited setting. They do not build an ongoing replacement channel inside the deceased person’s own community, copy their branding and content, then collaborate with their friends while staying in character. Putting the charity link first is good, but charity is not consent. Technolarp has still gained nearly 190,000 subscribers from Alex’s identity, which is a major personal benefit even without current ad revenue. And why is all the responsibility being placed on Technodad? Alex had other family members, siblings and close friends who may still be grieving and may have completely different feelings about seeing someone perform as him. They should not have to publicly discuss their grief or individually ask for it to stop. One friend participating also does not speak for every friend or imply approval from the family. Some fans may find it comforting. Others may find it painful or disturbing. The fans who enjoy it cannot grant permission on behalf of the people who actually knew and loved Alex. Technodad is now being pressured to speak for his entire family, Alex’s friends and a divided community. If he says no, he becomes the person taking something away from nearly 190,000 fans. If he says yes, people may treat that as blanket approval and encourage countless other impersonators. That is an unfair position to put a grieving father in, especially after building the audience first. If respect truly comes first, the channel pauses until there is clear approval and agreed boundaries. The burden belongs to the person choosing to impersonate someone who died. It should not be transferred to the family and friends left behind. Good intentions and charity donations do not turn silence into permission.