I understand from your words that the boycott.

Is commendable by cutting off this channel from homes and distancing it. And we mentioned that for scholars and preachers to appear on it, the basic principle is that a person does not endorse such a channel.

And his appearance is not promotion or advertising for it, but rather fulfilling this message that opposes that message.

As for the boycott, I say every channel that calls to immorality and spreads it among people, boycotting it is obligatory for viewers and for supporting advertisers.

And boycotting it is also obligatory for anyone who assists it or works in it.

And likewise for anyone who calls to it by any means of da'wah, and it is also obligatory for anyone in authority to remove it, and if he does not remove it, then he is a partner in those sins.

He is equal in sin and burden. Some also mention boycotting those who promote it secretly after the truth has been made clear to them.

The issue of this boycott, boycotting someone who approaches the forbidden in any of its forms.

Should he boycott or not boycott? This goes back to the benefit in it. If there is a benefit and it is done well, then this becomes more emphasized for him, and it should not be said, for example,

that it is obligatory except when there is a benefit. If a benefit is achieved in this, then this matter becomes more emphasized and should be called to.