They deserve to pay every dime of it. They exploited this man’s torture with full knowledge of what they were doing to him on stream after multiple complaints
Should get double finned for torturing Jean + Raja almost beating someone to death on stream.
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 15:53
nextcollapse
Mr Beast offering to pay for Raja’s opponent’s medical bills; he’s frankly lucky what happened to Jean hasn’t happened on his watch tbh. But he’d probably get off
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 27 Aug 07:27
collapse
mr beast is such attention seeker, he does charity porn and most likely going to make a video on how he just paid for it, which makes it insincere when people do these kinds of things.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 27 Aug 07:26
collapse
that was terrible to watch, and i heard all the MMA people defending raja.
The title kinda buries the lede there. I thought it was ridiculous to fine a platform just because a streamer happened to die on camera, but no, they were streaming months long abuse and torture of this guy at the hands of his co-streamers.
They kinda did. The dudes were taken in as part of an ongoing investigation but were then released. I can see why it’s fared for the cops when even the victims are saying it’s by their own choice. But it’s no excuse for kick.
The investigation, opened in December, is looking into “deliberate violence against vulnerable persons” and “spreading recordings of images related to offences involving deliberate violations of physical integrity,” Martinelli’s statement said. It did not specify why Pormanove could be considered vulnerable.
The statement said two co-streamers allegedly involved in the case were briefly taken into custody in January but were released pending further investigation.
In parallel, the Nice prosecutor said, investigators interviewed Pormanove and one of his co-streamers who both appeared to be victims of violence and humiliation. They “strongly denied being victims of violence, stating that the events were staged in order to `generate a buzz’ and make money.”
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 19:23
collapse
I mean, the footage is all public, right? Why shouldn’t the cops be able to watch it with their own eyes, and determine if it’s kosher?
execution of the law is always more complicated than we want it to be. They could have been let off as the investigation continued if the victim told the cops “i did everything with full consent and it was all an act for the entertainment of the stream.”. Cops/W/e the french version of DA is would possibly need to continue the investigation to show that either he was unable to consent to the actions or it was a lie that there was consent.
I’m just a layperson and maybe it was more cut and dry and the cops really dropped the ball. It just doesn’t seem so cut and dry legally to me. Will be interesting to see the outcome of the investigation from this.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
on 28 Aug 22:35
collapse
You know how NDAs are generally not enforceable in a court of law, no matter if the person “consented” or not, because some things are just not legal, and chances are theyre not knowledgeable enough to make that decision anyway? Kind of like how Statutory Rape works? Yeah. That, but with actual fucking torture thats broadcast publicly.
To be clear, the acts committed by these people are heinous. They should and hopefully eventually will face jail time. I’d be happy for employees or executives of kick to face similar. They are complicit as well.
My argument was that execution of the law is hard and never as easy as we would like it to be.
It’s all over the place on Facebook and Twitter though. There’s dog fighting, cock fighting, monkey abuse showing up on my Facebook home feed every now and then. This shouldn’t be a surprise really.
I’d love to know why an algorithm shows me this stuff as I don’t look any of it up. It’s quite traumatic to see. It’s the reason I don’t use these social media apps anymore. They’re all suggested posts and it’s an assault.
Generally it shows us content that makes us mad. Sadly, and opposite to what we thibk, humans are more likely to engage with content thst pisses us off. Maybe it took things too far with yours. Possibly you commented on how fucked up one post was so it showed you more. Dunno.
dgriffith@aussie.zone
on 26 Aug 21:47
nextcollapse
Algorithm shows a preview of a chaotic scene where the content isn’t easily identified.
You open / interact / linger on it to figure out what is happening before identifying it as something you don’t want to look at.
Algorithm detects increased interaction and happily serves up more.
I play a little game with Instagram sometimes. I click on one (1) thirst trap bikini girl post in the search reel. Then I see how many times I have to press the little 3 dot menu and pick “not interested” on allllll the other thirst trap bikini girl posts that immediately appear.
I generally have to press “not interested” about 15 times before my feed reverts to only having bikini girl thirst traps once every 20 or so posts.
JackbyDev@programming.dev
on 27 Aug 04:51
collapse
I used to get sucked in by cop videos on TikTok. I think it’s the curiosity. I hated it. I’d get shown so many. I didn’t enjoy watching them. I thought a lot about what’s happening and I really think it’s just the initial hook of “what’s happening here???” because there’s a cop. I had to actively scroll away as fast as possible every time I saw them to get that shit away. I finally did, but it was rough. It’s easy to fall into traps like that with social media algorithms. They aren’t meant to maximize your enjoyment, they’re meant to maximize your retention, engagement, and spending.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 27 Aug 07:37
collapse
im glad i dont have an app of tiktok, i just randomly click on pet/animal videos that link to someones account(mostly from DODO videos), but i close it after a few seconds because im not interested.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 27 Aug 07:35
collapse
FB is known for doing this, plus thier obvious propaganda, they want engagement so any drama they can randomly push will increase that. YOutube is a close second. thats why right wing drama is very good for business in general.
Facebook goes wild if you don’t really interact with it other than to browse.
Pause for a microsecond over something, welp I guess that’s your hobby now. For some reason mine always shows me chess. I have never played chess. Hate it. A family member on my Facebook friends list likes chess. FB just goes “chess? how about chess?” like it’s got nothing else to really offer other than flag waving racism.
Yeah. Ive noticed I get content based on who’s been aroind.
Drop kick cousin - graffiti content. Partners nerd friend - board games. Small family members - shitty gen z YouTubers.
UniversalBasicJustice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 27 Aug 10:15
collapse
Seriously, all these comments about fucked-up and predatory content…has anyone considered quitting Facebook? Or just algorithmically-served content altogether? Am I crazy for preferring to build and do my best to expand my own silo rather than having billionaire-owned corporations do it for me?
WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 26 Aug 15:51
nextcollapse
It’s similar to fear factor—you can authorize quite a lot of things in a contract.
The medical examiner has said that they don’t think his death was caused directly by the treatment during the stream.
“Salut maman, Comment tu vas ? Coincé pour un moment avec son jeu de mort, avait-il déclaré. Ça va trop loin. J’ai l’impression d’être séquestré avec leur concept de merde. J’en ai marre, je veux me barrer, l’autre il veut pas, il me séquestre”. (“Hey Mom, how are you? Stuck for a while with his death game,” he said. “This is going too far. I feel like I’m being held captive with their shitty concept. I’m fed up, I want to get out, the other guy doesn’t want me, he’s holding me captive.”)
It’s a valid translation overall, it just missed this colloquialism
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus
on 26 Aug 13:05
collapse
Uh, what’s does that matter? Is it ok to stream shit like that if it’s simulated?
Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de
on 26 Aug 13:18
collapse
Should we not be able to watch Reservoir Dogs because there’s simulated torture in it?
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus
on 26 Aug 13:36
nextcollapse
I like that. That's a good strawman. You compared a Kick stream focused on and containing only torture that literally killed a person to an artistic form of expression, a movie that was screened at Cannes and won many awards and is ranked second on the list of the Sundance Film Festival's Top 10 films of All Time.
Obviously, I don't think you're a big enough idiot to have meant that seriously, it was clearly satirical.
Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de
on 26 Aug 16:23
nextcollapse
That’s a good summary of my point, though I’m not sure why you think it’s a “strawman” and it certainly wasn’t satirical.
A strawman fallacy involves misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. I, however, accurately represented your argument and then used an **analogy ** to highlight its flaws. An analogy is a rhetorical tool used to explain a concept by comparing it to something similar. In this case, I was responding directly to your question about why it matters if torture is simulated, and if it’s ok to be streamed.
My point, which you seem to have somehow missed, is that we have a clear precedent for broadcasting simulated torture. And, as you so helpfully pointed out, simulated torture not only is ok to be streamed, but it can also receive acclaim and awards.
I’m glad we agree that simulated torture can be broadcast.
Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de
on 26 Aug 16:56
collapse
lol, so now I can go into pointing out your logical fallacies… but, honestly I’ve already spent more than enough time on this conversation with someone who is clearly very toxic. Thanks for the quick response and for validating my initial impression that you’re someone whose opinion I can happily live without, and welcome to my blocked list.
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus
on 26 Aug 17:06
collapse
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus
on 26 Aug 19:27
collapse
the dude died on stream , and then the people who tortured him to death sat around after he died, still streaming his dead body , and talked about what to tell the police, before they called emergency services. and here you guys are, arguing in their favor, calling it censorship that Kick is getting fined, and debating on whether the torture is "simulated".
Lampadaire_raclette@jlai.lu
on 27 Aug 07:42
collapse
Would you watch a torture scene if you’re not sure it is simulated or not?
In a movie? It’s Surely fake. On a livestream? I won’t be so sure.
Bob_Robertson_IX@discuss.tchncs.de
on 27 Aug 20:22
collapse
I’ve not watched any of this, however there were investigations and "investigators interviewed Pormanove and one of his co-streamers who both appeared to be victims of violence and humiliation. They “strongly denied being victims of violence, stating that the events were staged in order to `generate a buzz’ and make money.” ". That seems to me that this was simulated torture, or at the very least consensual torture. I’ve watched and enjoyed many episodes of Jackass and I’d consider some of the things they did to be a form of torture… this just seems to be the natural progression of that genre of ‘shock entertainment’, which unfortunately went too far in this case.
Kellenved@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 15:37
nextcollapse
A person with a intellectual disability will often be easier for abusers to manipulate and may not value their own well-being over the abusers approval
I mean, i get that the platform has obviously shitty security features, but more outrage should be directed towards the two asswipe streamers that actually tortured the guy.
DanWolfstone@leminal.space
on 27 Aug 08:19
collapse
He actively wanted out as seen by the desperate text sent to his mother saying how he “felt like a hostage” that was read aloud by one of his abusers on stream, but due to coersion both financially and socially. In one of the streams his abusers openly brag about how if he doesnt participate in their “game” they’ll take the keys for his car and his apartment until he does.
There’s generally a lot of factors that add up to staying in an abusive situation. From his point of view its likely that there didn’t seem much of an option for him outside of this.
He may have been very emotionally broken that he can’t think rationally . Everybody has completly different tolerability levels. The teo guys who tortured him could still have say no too so they are responsible
“Sure you can leave, but this will end the stream marathon, the three of us will lose money over it, and our community will be quite upset with you. But yeah, you can leave. Alright.”
QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works
on 28 Aug 03:45
collapse
Apparently he tried to but they refused
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 14:56
nextcollapse
If that is the case then I’d like to see how aware they were of what was happening. I’d push for criminal charges against management in that case.
Kick CEO was a top 5 donor to the channel in question. Not only did they know, they actively encouraged it.
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
on 26 Aug 18:07
collapse
By how it reads, it kind of looks like more of a Jack-ass situation if voluntary abuse. There was some mention of him getting shot with paint balls. Also, the autopsy report said he had no trauma.
cheese_greater@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 18:15
collapse
Physical trauma maybe
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
on 27 Aug 00:19
collapse
Well sure, it could have been something he drank, or maybe he wanted to kill himself and took something on purpose. We’ll probably end up finding out more at some point.
TheRealKuni@piefed.social
on 26 Aug 11:23
nextcollapse
Good thing Sauber is becoming Audi next season. That’s a lot of money for a title sponsor to lose (and it sounds like they deserve to lose it).
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 12:12
nextcollapse
Can somebody explain to me why, emotions aside, the French guy is not responsible for his own choices? Unless it comes to light that he was coerced into staying on the show, why are other parties being held responsible instead of himself?
I’m not looking to be controversial, I’m honestly curious if there’s some rational logic to it that I can understand, or this is all emotional.
dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 12:19
nextcollapse
Other parties are being held responsible for what?
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 12:20
nextcollapse
Well the article is about the platform potentially being fined 49M, so… whatever charge they’re being fined for?
killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 12:28
nextcollapse
Because they profited from his torture and subsequent death?
To your point though, they aren’t responsible in the moral sense that you’re implying. However, they committed a crime when they platformed, promoted and profited from it.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 12:46
collapse
Do we REALLY want to have platforms deciding what content is and isn’t acceptable for us, though? How is this different from the current controversy involving payment processors and their removal of content they find objectionable?
SculptusPoe@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 12:49
nextcollapse
People never think of that. They always clamor for censorship, always thinking censorship will go their way and censor the things they don’t like. Since the police already went to where this guy was and determined that he was there of his own volition, I don’t think the streaming services should have any other responsibility. The streaming services should always err on the side of not censoring anything.
I think platforms can dissallow some unreasonable content without 3rd parties trying to police all porn
hobwell@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 13:14
nextcollapse
I’d argue the main difference is that it involves a crime.
I’m not completely sure that torture itself constitutes a crime (though I’d be surprised if it wasn’t), but manslaughter/murder is. With few exceptions for medically assisted death, killing someone is a major crime. Presumably, we don’t want to promote people profiting from extreme suffering and death.
I also think there is a time and place for censorship (ex CSAM).
“Objectionable” is a subjective term, but “illegal“ is not.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 13:22
collapse
There’s 2 different parties under discussion here, the other streamers and the platform.
Regarding the streamers, I agree there might be room for a manslaughter charge. IANAL, much less in French law. Personally though, I don’t see how it differs substantially from any other high risk group activity. If you’re free-climbing (or maybe some other activity that involves more chance and less skill), and you’re doing it voluntarily, knowing the risks, is it really fair to blame the survivors if somebody dies?
Regarding the platform, up until the point where a death actually occurred, what could they have reasonably done that would not have constituted some form of censorship? At that point, aren’t we back to the censorship discussion of how much power platforms should have over the content we have access to?
I can kind of see what you are trying to say, but I don’t really agree with your conclusion.
I’d make the distinction that free climbing, while dangerous, is a recreational activity. I can reasonably conceive of people watching that for entertainment. There also isn’t anything morally questionable about it.
On the face of it, I don’t think you could reasonably argue that torture is a pastime.
All of that aside, torture is against international law. It is illegal in all circumstances.
“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification for torture.”
For that reason, I would say the platform did have an obligation to de-platform it.
Arguably, the police should probably have put a stop to it as well.
killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 13:34
nextcollapse
They aren’t deciding, they’re being held to laws that they didn’t create nor necessarily agree with.
I’d assume that, given the option, they’d like this kind of thing to be legal so they can continue making money from it legitimately
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 13:38
collapse
What? I think you’ve misread something.
The argument against them, as I understand it, is that they should not have allowed the streaming to happen. As this was pre-death, that would have required them to make a decision about what content they allowed that most people would consider censorship.
killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 14:00
collapse
Yes, that is the law. You are required not to broadcast death and to create circumstances in which the likelihood of this is minimised.
That’s not calling for censorship because it doesn’t preclude a level of consensual harm that doesn’t lead to high risk of death.
As I said earlier, your point stands: it is not for these platforms to act as moral compasses for viewers of consensual but provocative content.
However, that’s irrelevant to the law which wants to avoid incentivising people dying / being killed on broadcast streams for a profit.
I think this is ratified by the fact that there will be less of a burden of blame on the service provider if this proves not to be the case
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 14:12
collapse
I follow what you’re saying. In that case, what about extreme sports that carry a statistically significant chance of fatalities? Granted that they’re usually not televised, but that’s probably because they’re usually done out of passion. From a legal perspective, there’s not much to differentiate them.
killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 15:10
collapse
In those cases broadcasters take one of two roads:
Don’t broadcast it - many extreme sports are simply not broadcast by many, many broadcasters.
Properly mitigate the risk to an acceptable level - this is done frequently for sports and other media. This is the reason you can watch Jackass and Dirty Sanchez even though the risk of death for many stunts is non-zero.
Once the death occurs though, they can only rely on their demonstration of #2 here to offset legal culpability. They are also then generally bound to remove the material and not re-air (in this case, Kick did make the content available again for whatever reason)
It seems like this is the road the defense will take in this particular case is to prove the death (illegal to air if preventable) was not caused by the preceding consensual torture (legal to air, seemingly).
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 15:41
collapse
Thanks, that’s the sort of info I was hoping to get, and food for thought. I do wonder how Jackass-genre shows would work with streaming platforms where it’s obviously impractical to vet all of them. Do they just become illegal, then? Probably something that will get hammered out at some point.
Yes to some degree obviously I want some editorial control. For instance I don’t want people posting snuff films or child porn and I want sited that wouldn’t remove such themselves removed.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 14:54
collapse
Those are directly and obviously illegal material, and therefore a no brainer. This was a very different case, up until the death actually happened, nothing illegal was going on and there was no reason to think otherwise.
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus
on 26 Aug 17:09
collapse
it's 2025 and we got people arguing people who torture someone to death on a livestream shouldn't be deplatformed.
fucking wild, man, just fucking wild.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 17:10
collapse
Way to skip any nuance of the discussion at hand.
_cryptagion@anarchist.nexus
on 26 Aug 17:15
collapse
it's a torture stream. there's no fucking nuance. you sound like the people who are on the fence about gaza.
either you think people should be able to consent to being tortured on stream to death so a corporation can profit, or you don't. there's not a middle ground. I don't give a shit whether the people doing the torturing feel like they're being censored. they're sadistic filth.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 17:16
collapse
Yeah… Maybe read the fucking discussion points before chiming in. I love how you think I’m on the side of the fucking corporation.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 17:27
collapse
Oh OK, just realised this is an alt of one of those accounts with a modlog a mile long. Yeah just fuck off, I’m not interested in engaging. Everybody else has managed a perfectly civil discussion until you arrived.
dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 12:29
collapse
Okay, you asked why others are held responsible and not the dead guy and what is the logic behind it.
I don’t get what’s not to get about that.
The platform didn’t put a stop to torture on their platform. They are responsible for that.
The others streamers tortured a guy to death. They are responsible for that.
What exactly do you think the the dead guy is responsible for?
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 12:53
collapse
I don’t get what’s not to get about that.
No need to be a condescending jerk.
The platform didn’t put a stop to torture on their platform. They are responsible for that.
Why are they responsible for a grown adult making his own choices? What about an audience who directly funded the activity? Are they not even more directly responsible for the event that occurred?
The others streamers tortured a guy to death. They are responsible for that.
Yes, there’s probably some question about whether manslaughter laws might apply.
Given it was a voluntary participation, how is this different from any other activity that involves potential self-harm? If a bunch of people freeclimb a deadly mountain with a 20% chance of death and stream it, and one of them dies, is that illegal? Assuming not, what’s the difference here?
What exactly do you think the the dead guy is responsible for?
His choice to participate in an activity that killed him.
dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 14:20
nextcollapse
No need to be a condescending jerk.
I was serious. Sorry, didn’t meant to come of this way.
Why are they responsible for a grown adult making his own choices? What about an audience who directly funded the activity? Are they not even more directly responsible for the event that occurred?
They aren’t but they are responsible in the sense that they shouldn’t give that shit a platform.
Yes the audience is responsible too.
Given it was a voluntary participation, how is this different from any other activity that involves potential self-harm? If a bunch of people freeclimb a deadly mountain with a 20% chance of death and stream it, and one of them dies, is that illegal? Assuming not, what’s the difference here?
The question falls apart with the word self-harm. Other people did that to him.
And freeclimb metaphor doesn’t work as well as harm is not the goal of free climbing. The goal is to reach the top. Dying is a risk you take. Besides if you would stream free climbing and egg the other person on to do stupid shit or make it more difficult to climb for the other person, and that person dies because of that, you would be partly responsible for that death.
His choice to participate in an activity that killed him.
Yes he is responsible for that.
But I think this is not a this-one-person-is-responsible-situation. Everybody in the chain of events that lead to this mans death is responsible in some way. Everybody who knew and did nothing.
There is a gradient of responsibility, of course. The person just watching isn’t as responsible as the person who is acting, but everybody is guilty to some degree. And to that degree people should be punished.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 14:35
collapse
They aren’t but they are responsible in the sense that they shouldn’t give that shit a platform.
This statement could be used about literally any topic that certain groups of people find objectionable. The US is currently providing a very clear example of what happens when you use that argument.
Other people did that to him.
Seeing as he was an active participant in it, this is the core of my questioning. Why is it considered ‘something others did to him’, and not ‘something he did to himself’? He could have left at any time, but he chose to stay and remain in the activity.
freeclimb metaphor doesn’t work as well as harm is not the goal of free climbing. The goal is to reach the top. Dying is a risk you take.
Harm was not the direct goal of this stream either. The goal was to see how long they could stay awake. Heck, take boxing. Boxers still die every year, and that’s a much more obvious example of harm being the direct goal of the activity. Nobody is seriously suggesting that boxing should be criminalised, or that participants should be prosecuted.
But I think this is not a this-one-person-is-responsible-situation. Everybody in the chain of events that lead to this mans death is responsible in some way. Everybody who knew and did nothing.
There is a gradient of responsibility, of course. The person just watching isn’t as responsible as the person who is acting, but everybody is guilty to some degree. And to that degree people should be punished.
I agree that everybody involved is in some way indirectly responsible. However I’m unclear that it’s actually illegal. Morally reprehensible, but morality is a very subjective opinion and one I’m very hesitant to let platforms start deciding on my behalf.
dontbelievethis@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 14:59
nextcollapse
This statement could be used about literally any topic that certain groups of people find objectionable. The US is currently providing a very clear example of what happens when you use that argument.
Maybe but in what way my statement could be used has nothing todo with the conversation we are having.
I used it specifically in the context of torture.
Seeing as he was an active participant in it, this is the core of my questioning. Why is it considered ‘something others did to him’, and not ‘something he did to himself’? He could have left at any time, but he chose to stay and remain in the activity.
Quoting the article:
On August 18, 46-year-old Raphaël Graven, better known as Jean Pormanove, died in his sleep while live on Kick. In the days and even months prior, he had reportedly endured extreme violence, sleep deprivation, and forced ingestion of toxic products at the hands of two fellow streamers known as Naruto and Safine.
Because letting someone do something to you is still another person doing something to you.
As long as we don’t know why he stayed we can’t be sure if it was because of trauma or greed.
Harm was not the direct goal of this stream either. The goal was to see how long they could stay awake. Heck, take boxing. Boxers still die every year, and that’s a much more obvious example of harm being the direct goal of the activity. Nobody is seriously suggesting that boxing should be criminalised, or that participants should be prosecuted.
That’s the stated goal but from context/article it is reasonable to assume that fucking with the guy was a goal too.
Well I don’t think saying because one fucked up thing exists that makes it okay that we tolerate other fucked up things is a good point. There is certainly a discussion to be had about the morality of boxing. In my opinion at least.
I agree that everybody involved is in some way indirectly responsible. However I’m unclear that it’s actually illegal. Morally reprehensible, but morality is a very subjective opinion and one I’m very hesitant to let platforms start deciding on my behalf.
Well I think there are some things we can all agree on are not okay. Torture for example.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 15:16
collapse
Maybe but in what way my statement could be used has nothing todo with the conversation we are having.
I used it specifically in the context of torture.
Yes, but was it illegal? The point being that our opinions of morality don’t, and shouldn’t, matter. The only thing that should matter is whether it breaks the law, and any ramifications of that.
Because letting someone do something to you is still another person doing something to you.
Consent is a thing. If you agree to something, and physical harm happens as a reasonably unexpected outcome, the other party is usually not held responsible.
That said, depending on circumstance I can see the other streamers having some responsibility for his death.
What I don’t see is how the platform is reasonably expected to make judgement calls about this sort of content without descending into censorship. Prior to death, none of what had been done was illegal. Expecting them to cut off the stream would have been no different from other corps removing material they find morally objectionable.
There is certainly a discussion to be had about the morality of boxing. In my opinion at least.
Well I think there are some things we can all agree on are not okay. Torture for example.
I agree with you about the morality. That’s not the point. Censorship is a major problem in the world today, and encouraging more of it is something we need to be wary of. Self-censorship is especially insidious, and expecting companies to self-censor leads to all sort of undesirable outcomes. That’s why we have laws, so that it’s (mostly) clear and unambiguous where the line is.
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
on 26 Aug 15:06
collapse
In the EU platforms can be found guilty for what they publish though. It is the platform’s responsibility and duty to check whether their content is violating the law or not.
If a German newspaper were to publish an ad advocating for the murder of an ethnic group, both the creator of the ad and the newspaper would face charges.
I can’t say much more about the rest but there are certainly legal standards for boxing that need to be abided for a boxing event to be legal. This includes having medical staff on site, a referee which manages the match, gloves being mandated for the boxers etc. If these standards aren’t held, you can charge a boxer for participating in an illegal fight and manslaughter should the other boxer die.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 15:45
collapse
there are certainly legal standards for boxing that need to be abided for a boxing event to be legal. This includes having medical staff on site, a referee which manages the match, gloves being mandated for the boxers etc. If these standards aren’t held, you can charge a boxer for participating in an illegal fight and manslaughter should the other boxer die.
Fair point. Given how quickly these trends can pop out of nowhere, countries probably need to start creating laws covering general physical stupidity.
Because they by running a business are responsible to ensure that they don’t promote or willfully ignore harm brought about wholly or in part by their actions or negligence.
For actually moral folks the minimum the law requires is a starting point not the last word.
Eg moral folks ask is there anything I am doing that causes harm or anything I’m not doing that I reasonably ought to do to prevent it.
Smart people too as many governments take a dim view of dodging responsibly and will invent new laws to regulate you.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 14:40
collapse
For actually moral folks the minimum the law requires is a starting point not the last word.
Eg moral folks ask is there anything I am doing that causes harm or anything I’m not doing that I reasonably ought to do to prevent it.
So… Like the payment processors banning all immoral transactions from their network? Is that what we’re supporting?
No I’m supporting shut down of streaming channels that appear to show abuse or harm in a non functional context that is either non consentual or that no reasonable person would consent to.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 15:22
collapse
In other words, you’re declaring that they should exercise their moral judgement to remove immoral content.
I’d imagine inducing stress and manipulation if anything. Pormanove and the fourth guy were and are both mentally challenged and thus more easily manipulated and coerced. Also no way you don’t see the signs coming from your “friend” after streaming together for more than a year and a half
SculptusPoe@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 12:25
nextcollapse
Well. Devil’s advocate, they are holding the streaming service responsible because they didn’t block the stream, which presumably would presumably disrupt the streamer’s actions. I don’t personally think Kick should be responsible at all.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 13:42
nextcollapse
Yeah, I don’t see how they’re responsible either, but I’m getting lots of emotional replies and nobody actually seems to want to admit they’re advocating censorship. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 14:08
nextcollapse
Sometimes censorship is good
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 14:12
collapse
Nobody has ever denied that censorship can sometimes be good. The problem has always been who gets to decide when it’s good and when it isn’t?
I think Kick should be able to censor streams on their service that are showing torture. They are not, and should not be, obligated to provide their services to show that content.
That’s not what ‘law is emotionless’ means. It means that the law should be applied regardless of the emotions of the culpable person, their family, or sympathizers.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 18:41
collapse
Ok? Nowhere in this discussion has it been suggested otherwise
You claimed that the platform and the guys who was responsible of his death shouldn’t be punished although that is not what the law say
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 18:57
collapse
Ok… Looking through your profile, I’m guessing you’re French speaking. That is not at all what I said or meant, neither is it what the law says (the law hasn’t said anything, since by definition there needs to be a trial and conviction before the law can be considered to have said anything).
moodymellodrone@sopuli.xyz
on 26 Aug 19:13
collapse
Yeah I don’t think the company should be legally responsible, since the streamers were investigated for abuse and subsequently cleared by police. Was there something the platform was legally obligated to do further? We can say it was morally wrong to allow the streaming of that type of content, yes
Yeah, I wouldn’t watch it. I also don’t watch boxing or football. They probably should have shut them down if they are policing their streams at all.
UnfairUtan@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 14:45
nextcollapse
It’s a difficult situation to explain, and it will be even harder to judge.
What seems to be true is that they had a hold on him. They seemed to abuse his mental weaknesses, and regularly made themselves look like benefactor for “saving him from himself” and making him earn a lot of money.
Sure he could have technically walked out any day, but when you’re under the influence of manipulative “friends”, I’m not sure it’s that easy.
Bear in mind that I’m not stating 100% proven facts.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 14:56
collapse
Yeah, depending on circumstance I can definitely see a case being made for the streamers having some responsibility.
I don’t see how the platform should be responsible without opening up a can of worms involving censorship. Mastercard has proven we do not want fucking corps having that power.
It depends. Do you consider Twitch’s moderation to be to extreme? They definitely wouldn’t have let this slide. I’m pretty sure they used to stream on twitch and got banned there.
Kick is currently very lax when it comes to moderation (it’s their niche, their way of existing even with Twitch’s dominance), and I don’t think banning channels promoting group punching a dude would be a bad thing to censor.
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 16:25
collapse
Idk, I don’t watch videos so I’m unfamiliar with it.
don’t think banning channels promoting group punching a dude would be a bad thing to censor.
I don’t think so either, but experience has taught me not to give companies any more power than necessary. If it needs to be done, pass a law for it.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 16:41
nextcollapse
Whenever you do something that results in the death of another human there needs to be an investigation. From what I can tell no culpability has been found yet, but there is at least some evidence that this person was being held against their will.
However, lots of European countries treat violence like the US treats porn so this could easily be something similar to the pearl clutching that would happen here if somebody was asphyxiated during a BDSM livestream.
Article 223-15-2 of the French Penal Code. This article punishes the fraudulent abuse of the ignorance or state of weakness of a minor or a person whose particular vulnerability is apparent or known due to age, sickness, disability, pregnancy, or psychological dependency
The french guy is free to do as he likes in the privacy of his own home. The line in the sand is the streaming of it online. Promoting violence is not ok and Kick should have banned them long before it got to this point
cyrano@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 26 Aug 12:27
nextcollapse
From a libé article:
Raphaël Graven, 46, known under the pseudonym Jean Pormanove, died near Nice during a live broadcast on August 18 on the Australian video platform Kick after more than 12 days of live streaming showing him and another man being assaulted and humiliated by two people. Followed by nearly 200,000 viewers, the “Jeanpormanove” channel had for months shown Raphaël Graven being insulted, beaten, having his hair pulled, threatened, and even being shot at without protection with paintball projectiles. According to the channel’s promoters, the content was staged.
Deputy Minister for Digital Affairs Clara Chappaz on Tuesday announced her intention to sue the Kick platform for “breach.” She made the announcement after a meeting convened at Bercy with officials from several ministries (Justice, Interior, Economy) and two independent authorities, accusing Kick of violating the 2004 Digital Trust law.
loudwhisper@infosec.pub
on 26 Aug 12:39
nextcollapse
I feel completely out of the loop when stuff like this happens.
Story of my life. Major story drops, article provides little to no context, and everyone in the comments already seems to know what’s going on.
This happens constantly in my life, both online and offline; why does it seem like I’m always being left out? I’ve missed out on so many parties and events because of this issue.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 14:03
nextcollapse
I guess I’m too old to understand what the hell Kick is or how grown people are making a living being childish bullies, but for Christ’s sake, they just killed courage the dog’s owner.
What changed between the ‘months of torture’ and Naruto and Safine being arrested, and the '10 days ’ leading up to his death?
It sounds sick that the French government would decide a man is being tortured yet they’re not obligated to intervene… while at the same time they fine a company for not stepping in.
If this man was negligently killed, authorities and kick are to blame, but it’s the authorities that should’ve been the failsafe, not the company. I guess it makes sense that French politicians are Very Mad™ and Seriously Considering Bigger Punishments™.
Exactly the autorities should be help accountable too
moodymellodrone@sopuli.xyz
on 26 Aug 22:13
nextcollapse
Exactly. Law enforcement investigated and found no wrongdoing. They’re the ones who dropped the ball here. Was there something else Kick was legally obligated to do? I agree that there was a moral fuck up here resulting in somebody dying. But torture between competent consenting adults is legal. Just like we’re saying BDSM is okay
Also someone else mentioned the TV show Jackass and I just wanna know how some are drawing the line here. So are some of the dangerous stunts on Jackass ok or not? Why?
hanrahan@piefed.social
on 27 Aug 04:57
nextcollapse
It seemed that for Jackass ultimately noone was killed. Also it seems that the participants were not in a vulnerable situation that was exploited, but engaged with full consent and were able to give consent.
It’s not the French government issuing the fine, it’s the Australian, where the company is hosted. They probably should have hosted themselves in the US and hid behind the first amendment
Believe it or not, prolonged physical and mental torture is not speech, a religion, a function of the press, an assembly, or a petition. You could probably get some of the physical violence covered by the Second Amendment though, if you have a gun and just do a little of the South Park “he’s coming right for us” thing.
The autority should be held accountable too since they opened an investigation but did not force the streamers to temporarly stop streaming till the investigation is finished
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 20:01
collapse
I don’t think that’s a real issue. depending on how long this investigation goes, that would either be meaningless loss of revenue for these content creators, or an easy way to destroy the career of any other content creators too if a disgruntled viewer reports them falsely.
The investigation started in December 2024, the abusers was taken into custody then released unconditionally so i don’t see how the authorities are not responsible too
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
on 26 Aug 20:43
collapse
ok, that’s a different reason now, I can agree with that. maybe it shouldn’t be legally possible to consent to abuse like that. but a law forbidding that could have far reaching consequences, like if a medical treatment is very painful but it cannot be avoided because painkillers have alimited effect
lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
on 26 Aug 19:24
nextcollapse
Can someone point out the part where this wasn’t voluntary or the guy was held captive & not free to leave or end the voluntary abuse at any time?
It looks like idiots kink-playing too hard with extra fines to some platform while the morons try to escape accountability.
Viral compilation threads have shown Pormanove being hit, strangled, and fired at with paintball guns while streaming with Naruto and Safine, whose lawyers claim they hold “no responsibility.”
buddascrayon@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 21:53
nextcollapse
The company is still at fault for not banning such behavior on their service. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be violent and promote violence.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 27 Aug 06:29
collapse
Violence is fine. What’s not fine is the permanent disfigurement or death of participants and the lack of preventative controls against that.
In a cage match, a participant would never be ignored long enough to stop breathing, like they did here.
Also, IMO, voluntary or not, this goes over the edge, especially on the streaming part. If someone genuinely enjoys this, they can do it in private, and exactly as they like.
When money and popularity get involved, this prompts more extreme behavior, turning a willing masochist into a victim, and a game into a trap.
Besides, authorities could have at least checked up on him.
Sources for that information should be easy to cite, yet I notice none.
they can do it in private
How do we tell real apart from fake performances?
Should fake performances be private only when they already aren’t?
Seems difficult to police without chilling freedoms.
Economic coercion needs to be controlled somehow.
I guess the question is how to police actual abuse while permitting legal performances like the Jackass franchise of reality, slapstick comedy.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 27 Aug 06:26
collapse
Kink playing is ultimately the responsibility of the top, if this was that.
It’s not, because they disregarded that person’s state of well-being in a continued way.
Is it just my ADHD, or did the article completely fail to mention why a streamer was forced by two other streamers to stay awake and ingest poison? Did they hold his family for ransom or something? I need context.
buddascrayon@lemmy.world
on 26 Aug 21:50
nextcollapse
Neither it, nor several other articles linked by it have clarified this. Frustrating times.
If I understood properly the guy was a kinda homeless person that the two fuckers “hosted” in their house in exchange for participating (being tortured) in their streams. He was disabled or mentally challenged too, and there was another victim of theirs that was handicapped in the flat too.
The alarm has been raised for at least 8 months but neither the police nor the national agencies nor the minister contacted either did or decided to do anything. Every time the police came the victims were saying that all was good and they gave their consent to anything, but on stream they were often asking to call the cops, an ambulance or trying to leave and the two fuckers barred them the exit and threatened to beat them or throw them back to the streets. So they were basically held hostage.
The whole thing is a disgrace. It was the most viewed French language stream on Kick for months, two vulnerable people being tortured on stream and nobody did anything.
From what I understood the two fuckers will probably get a 25 to 30 years of jail sentence, and some of the people who donated money to them to encourage them in the torture also risk prison time. Which I fucking hope they get.
Someone took upon himself to save all the worst clips and try to raise the alarm, they have more than 300 hours of stream capture with evidence of torture and other wrongdoings.
slaneesh_is_right@lemmy.org
on 27 Aug 10:47
nextcollapse
I hardly even know what kick is, i assumed it’s just twitch for more degenerate people ald less rules. But why does kick has to pay suck a insane fee? They brodcasted it and didn’t do anything when people raised awareness, sure. But the main takeaway is always that people do and watch sick garbage if they have the opportunity. Hell they even pay for it and encourage it.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 27 Aug 12:00
nextcollapse
They brodcasted it and didn’t do anything when people raised awareness, sure.
And they made money on it.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
on 28 Aug 04:52
collapse
When they were alerted to it, they did nothing. They simply allowed it to continue, and profited from it.
Worse than that, Kick even gave this channel money and featured it. They are complicit.
There is even a sequence where the two fuckers try to force him to say that “if he dies on stream, it won’t be their fault” but the fault of his “shitty health situation”. He flat out refused.
They perfectly knew they were in the process of killing him.
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online
on 27 Aug 18:34
collapse
That is murder. These fuckers should be spending the rest of their damn lives in a prison cell.
So all those “red room” legends were true. It’s just that instead of being in the dark web, it was broadcast in public for the world to see. How dystopian.
After the whole spiking their own wifes and mothers to pass around for rape online, including with making videos and now this, i am starting to think France has a pretty bad problem with psychopaths and a society that is looking away or even encouraging it rather than stepping in.
Tortellinius@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 10:08
nextcollapse
Kinda homeless? The victim is the largest french gaming streamer and definitely not homeless. There’s indications of mental health problems but it’s only visible on camera. There are no documents verifying it unfortunately (though it seems evident). The two killers are people he’s known and hung out with for years.
Edit: The apartment was rented specifically for this stream.
Depending on margins, it can make a company unprofitable pretty quick if they’re hit by a fine of nearly 30% of their revenue.
Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 27 Aug 11:50
collapse
Yes
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
on 27 Aug 07:28
nextcollapse
cost of doing business, as part of thier budget.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world
on 27 Aug 18:13
nextcollapse
I mean, Kick probably could be suspending people who stream for an unhealthily long time, maybe suspend his abusive friends, but they didn’t force him to take any actions resulting in his death imo.
What exactly is the crime?
ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online
on 27 Aug 18:21
collapse
Yes. I saw a video on getting around Flock’s AI cameras and he mentions the numerous million dollar lawsuits that regularly result from misuse of their data and the glitches that cause people to have guns pointed at their heads by police.
It is a cost of doing business. Saying ‘I’ll sue you!’ To them is as threatening as charging someone a little extra for that order of coffee they made.
Sorry, I was making an oblique reference to section 230 that says an internet publisher isn’t responsible for what users use their medium for. Even if it is is indecent.
threaded - newest
They deserve to pay every dime of it. They exploited this man’s torture with full knowledge of what they were doing to him on stream after multiple complaints
Should get double finned for torturing Jean + Raja almost beating someone to death on stream.
Mr Beast offering to pay for Raja’s opponent’s medical bills; he’s frankly lucky what happened to Jean hasn’t happened on his watch tbh. But he’d probably get off
mr beast is such attention seeker, he does charity porn and most likely going to make a video on how he just paid for it, which makes it insincere when people do these kinds of things.
that was terrible to watch, and i heard all the MMA people defending raja.
The people who work for thr ufc have been defending raja but the mma community wants him in jail. Theyre way to racist to miss this opportunity.
The title kinda buries the lede there. I thought it was ridiculous to fine a platform just because a streamer happened to die on camera, but no, they were streaming months long abuse and torture of this guy at the hands of his co-streamers.
It is insane how it is even possible to live stream the torture of someone for months without any law enforcement getting involved.
They kinda did. The dudes were taken in as part of an ongoing investigation but were then released. I can see why it’s fared for the cops when even the victims are saying it’s by their own choice. But it’s no excuse for kick.
ctvnews.ca/…/outcry-over-french-streamers-death-o…
I mean, the footage is all public, right? Why shouldn’t the cops be able to watch it with their own eyes, and determine if it’s kosher?
execution of the law is always more complicated than we want it to be. They could have been let off as the investigation continued if the victim told the cops “i did everything with full consent and it was all an act for the entertainment of the stream.”. Cops/W/e the french version of DA is would possibly need to continue the investigation to show that either he was unable to consent to the actions or it was a lie that there was consent.
I’m just a layperson and maybe it was more cut and dry and the cops really dropped the ball. It just doesn’t seem so cut and dry legally to me. Will be interesting to see the outcome of the investigation from this.
You know how NDAs are generally not enforceable in a court of law, no matter if the person “consented” or not, because some things are just not legal, and chances are theyre not knowledgeable enough to make that decision anyway? Kind of like how Statutory Rape works? Yeah. That, but with actual fucking torture thats broadcast publicly.
Huh? Why are you bringing up NDA’s?
To be clear, the acts committed by these people are heinous. They should and hopefully eventually will face jail time. I’d be happy for employees or executives of kick to face similar. They are complicit as well.
My argument was that execution of the law is hard and never as easy as we would like it to be.
It’s all over the place on Facebook and Twitter though. There’s dog fighting, cock fighting, monkey abuse showing up on my Facebook home feed every now and then. This shouldn’t be a surprise really.
Thats just like, your algorithm man. -Labowskie
I’d love to know why an algorithm shows me this stuff as I don’t look any of it up. It’s quite traumatic to see. It’s the reason I don’t use these social media apps anymore. They’re all suggested posts and it’s an assault.
Generally it shows us content that makes us mad. Sadly, and opposite to what we thibk, humans are more likely to engage with content thst pisses us off. Maybe it took things too far with yours. Possibly you commented on how fucked up one post was so it showed you more. Dunno.
I play a little game with Instagram sometimes. I click on one (1) thirst trap bikini girl post in the search reel. Then I see how many times I have to press the little 3 dot menu and pick “not interested” on allllll the other thirst trap bikini girl posts that immediately appear.
I generally have to press “not interested” about 15 times before my feed reverts to only having bikini girl thirst traps once every 20 or so posts.
I used to get sucked in by cop videos on TikTok. I think it’s the curiosity. I hated it. I’d get shown so many. I didn’t enjoy watching them. I thought a lot about what’s happening and I really think it’s just the initial hook of “what’s happening here???” because there’s a cop. I had to actively scroll away as fast as possible every time I saw them to get that shit away. I finally did, but it was rough. It’s easy to fall into traps like that with social media algorithms. They aren’t meant to maximize your enjoyment, they’re meant to maximize your retention, engagement, and spending.
im glad i dont have an app of tiktok, i just randomly click on pet/animal videos that link to someones account(mostly from DODO videos), but i close it after a few seconds because im not interested.
FB is known for doing this, plus thier obvious propaganda, they want engagement so any drama they can randomly push will increase that. YOutube is a close second. thats why right wing drama is very good for business in general.
Facebook goes wild if you don’t really interact with it other than to browse.
Pause for a microsecond over something, welp I guess that’s your hobby now. For some reason mine always shows me chess. I have never played chess. Hate it. A family member on my Facebook friends list likes chess. FB just goes “chess? how about chess?” like it’s got nothing else to really offer other than flag waving racism.
Yeah. Ive noticed I get content based on who’s been aroind.
Drop kick cousin - graffiti content. Partners nerd friend - board games. Small family members - shitty gen z YouTubers.
Seriously, all these comments about fucked-up and predatory content…has anyone considered quitting Facebook? Or just algorithmically-served content altogether? Am I crazy for preferring to build and do my best to expand my own silo rather than having billionaire-owned corporations do it for me?
It’s similar to fear factor—you can authorize quite a lot of things in a contract.
The medical examiner has said that they don’t think his death was caused directly by the treatment during the stream.
As long as you give a platform to the right wing, laws never apply to you.
The fuck
Was it real or simulated? I haven’t seen any article make a definitive statement.
Source
Just a nitpick, “jeu de mort” would never be translated as “death game”. In this context “de mort” would be an intensifier like “fucking” or “damned”.
I see. It is google translate though (the translation duckduckgo provided was even more horrendous).
It’s a valid translation overall, it just missed this colloquialism
Uh, what’s does that matter? Is it ok to stream shit like that if it’s simulated?
Should we not be able to watch Reservoir Dogs because there’s simulated torture in it?
I like that. That's a good strawman. You compared a Kick stream focused on and containing only torture that literally killed a person to an artistic form of expression, a movie that was screened at Cannes and won many awards and is ranked second on the list of the Sundance Film Festival's Top 10 films of All Time.
Obviously, I don't think you're a big enough idiot to have meant that seriously, it was clearly satirical.
.
That’s a good summary of my point, though I’m not sure why you think it’s a “strawman” and it certainly wasn’t satirical.
A strawman fallacy involves misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. I, however, accurately represented your argument and then used an **analogy ** to highlight its flaws. An analogy is a rhetorical tool used to explain a concept by comparing it to something similar. In this case, I was responding directly to your question about why it matters if torture is simulated, and if it’s ok to be streamed.
My point, which you seem to have somehow missed, is that we have a clear precedent for broadcasting simulated torture. And, as you so helpfully pointed out, simulated torture not only is ok to be streamed, but it can also receive acclaim and awards.
I’m glad we agree that simulated torture can be broadcast.
.
lol, so now I can go into pointing out your logical fallacies… but, honestly I’ve already spent more than enough time on this conversation with someone who is clearly very toxic. Thanks for the quick response and for validating my initial impression that you’re someone whose opinion I can happily live without, and welcome to my blocked list.
oh no!
anyway.
Not a straw man. An actual point.
the dude died on stream , and then the people who tortured him to death sat around after he died, still streaming his dead body , and talked about what to tell the police, before they called emergency services. and here you guys are, arguing in their favor, calling it censorship that Kick is getting fined, and debating on whether the torture is "simulated".
Would you watch a torture scene if you’re not sure it is simulated or not?
In a movie? It’s Surely fake. On a livestream? I won’t be so sure.
I’ve not watched any of this, however there were investigations and "investigators interviewed Pormanove and one of his co-streamers who both appeared to be victims of violence and humiliation. They “strongly denied being victims of violence, stating that the events were staged in order to `generate a buzz’ and make money.” ". That seems to me that this was simulated torture, or at the very least consensual torture. I’ve watched and enjoyed many episodes of Jackass and I’d consider some of the things they did to be a form of torture… this just seems to be the natural progression of that genre of ‘shock entertainment’, which unfortunately went too far in this case.
OK, but - could he not leave? Or say “i do not want to”? I don’t get it
Nice victim blaming.
No, no, not at all, i just do not unterstand it.
A person with a intellectual disability will often be easier for abusers to manipulate and may not value their own well-being over the abusers approval
I mean, i get that the platform has obviously shitty security features, but more outrage should be directed towards the two asswipe streamers that actually tortured the guy.
He actively wanted out as seen by the desperate text sent to his mother saying how he “felt like a hostage” that was read aloud by one of his abusers on stream, but due to coersion both financially and socially. In one of the streams his abusers openly brag about how if he doesnt participate in their “game” they’ll take the keys for his car and his apartment until he does.
There’s generally a lot of factors that add up to staying in an abusive situation. From his point of view its likely that there didn’t seem much of an option for him outside of this.
Yeah, so go after these fuckos. They deserve even more outrage than the plattform which has obvious shitty protection protocolls
I wholeheartedly agree
He could.
He may have been very emotionally broken that he can’t think rationally . Everybody has completly different tolerability levels. The teo guys who tortured him could still have say no too so they are responsible
“Sure you can leave, but this will end the stream marathon, the three of us will lose money over it, and our community will be quite upset with you. But yeah, you can leave. Alright.”
Apparently he tried to but they refused
If that is the case then I’d like to see how aware they were of what was happening. I’d push for criminal charges against management in that case.
Kick CEO was a top 5 donor to the channel in question. Not only did they know, they actively encouraged it.
By how it reads, it kind of looks like more of a Jack-ass situation if voluntary abuse. There was some mention of him getting shot with paint balls. Also, the autopsy report said he had no trauma.
Physical trauma maybe
Well sure, it could have been something he drank, or maybe he wanted to kill himself and took something on purpose. We’ll probably end up finding out more at some point.
Good thing Sauber is becoming Audi next season. That’s a lot of money for a title sponsor to lose (and it sounds like they deserve to lose it).
.
You are out of frame, Donny
.
Money truly justifies all.
Can somebody explain to me why, emotions aside, the French guy is not responsible for his own choices? Unless it comes to light that he was coerced into staying on the show, why are other parties being held responsible instead of himself?
I’m not looking to be controversial, I’m honestly curious if there’s some rational logic to it that I can understand, or this is all emotional.
Other parties are being held responsible for what?
Well the article is about the platform potentially being fined 49M, so… whatever charge they’re being fined for?
Because they profited from his torture and subsequent death?
To your point though, they aren’t responsible in the moral sense that you’re implying. However, they committed a crime when they platformed, promoted and profited from it.
Do we REALLY want to have platforms deciding what content is and isn’t acceptable for us, though? How is this different from the current controversy involving payment processors and their removal of content they find objectionable?
People never think of that. They always clamor for censorship, always thinking censorship will go their way and censor the things they don’t like. Since the police already went to where this guy was and determined that he was there of his own volition, I don’t think the streaming services should have any other responsibility. The streaming services should always err on the side of not censoring anything.
Why should they err on that side again?
Because we don’t want them censoring anything they find objectionable. Like porn. Or abortion material. Or LGBT stuff. Need I go on?
Almost every website has a TOS and censors some stuff against said terms. You act like its not already nornal to have standards for conduct.
Like mastercard and their ban of all purchases of items that could reflect negatively on their brand. Like porn.
I think platforms can dissallow some unreasonable content without 3rd parties trying to police all porn
I’d argue the main difference is that it involves a crime.
I’m not completely sure that torture itself constitutes a crime (though I’d be surprised if it wasn’t), but manslaughter/murder is. With few exceptions for medically assisted death, killing someone is a major crime. Presumably, we don’t want to promote people profiting from extreme suffering and death.
I also think there is a time and place for censorship (ex CSAM).
“Objectionable” is a subjective term, but “illegal“ is not.
There’s 2 different parties under discussion here, the other streamers and the platform.
Regarding the streamers, I agree there might be room for a manslaughter charge. IANAL, much less in French law. Personally though, I don’t see how it differs substantially from any other high risk group activity. If you’re free-climbing (or maybe some other activity that involves more chance and less skill), and you’re doing it voluntarily, knowing the risks, is it really fair to blame the survivors if somebody dies?
Regarding the platform, up until the point where a death actually occurred, what could they have reasonably done that would not have constituted some form of censorship? At that point, aren’t we back to the censorship discussion of how much power platforms should have over the content we have access to?
I can kind of see what you are trying to say, but I don’t really agree with your conclusion.
I’d make the distinction that free climbing, while dangerous, is a recreational activity. I can reasonably conceive of people watching that for entertainment. There also isn’t anything morally questionable about it.
On the face of it, I don’t think you could reasonably argue that torture is a pastime.
All of that aside, torture is against international law. It is illegal in all circumstances.
From the United Nation Convention Against Torture:
For that reason, I would say the platform did have an obligation to de-platform it.
Arguably, the police should probably have put a stop to it as well.
They aren’t deciding, they’re being held to laws that they didn’t create nor necessarily agree with.
I’d assume that, given the option, they’d like this kind of thing to be legal so they can continue making money from it legitimately
What? I think you’ve misread something.
The argument against them, as I understand it, is that they should not have allowed the streaming to happen. As this was pre-death, that would have required them to make a decision about what content they allowed that most people would consider censorship.
Yes, that is the law. You are required not to broadcast death and to create circumstances in which the likelihood of this is minimised.
That’s not calling for censorship because it doesn’t preclude a level of consensual harm that doesn’t lead to high risk of death.
As I said earlier, your point stands: it is not for these platforms to act as moral compasses for viewers of consensual but provocative content.
However, that’s irrelevant to the law which wants to avoid incentivising people dying / being killed on broadcast streams for a profit.
I think this is ratified by the fact that there will be less of a burden of blame on the service provider if this proves not to be the case
I follow what you’re saying. In that case, what about extreme sports that carry a statistically significant chance of fatalities? Granted that they’re usually not televised, but that’s probably because they’re usually done out of passion. From a legal perspective, there’s not much to differentiate them.
In those cases broadcasters take one of two roads:
Don’t broadcast it - many extreme sports are simply not broadcast by many, many broadcasters.
Properly mitigate the risk to an acceptable level - this is done frequently for sports and other media. This is the reason you can watch Jackass and Dirty Sanchez even though the risk of death for many stunts is non-zero.
Once the death occurs though, they can only rely on their demonstration of #2 here to offset legal culpability. They are also then generally bound to remove the material and not re-air (in this case, Kick did make the content available again for whatever reason)
It seems like this is the road the defense will take in this particular case is to prove the death (illegal to air if preventable) was not caused by the preceding consensual torture (legal to air, seemingly).
Thanks, that’s the sort of info I was hoping to get, and food for thought. I do wonder how Jackass-genre shows would work with streaming platforms where it’s obviously impractical to vet all of them. Do they just become illegal, then? Probably something that will get hammered out at some point.
Yes to some degree obviously I want some editorial control. For instance I don’t want people posting snuff films or child porn and I want sited that wouldn’t remove such themselves removed.
Those are directly and obviously illegal material, and therefore a no brainer. This was a very different case, up until the death actually happened, nothing illegal was going on and there was no reason to think otherwise.
it's 2025 and we got people arguing people who torture someone to death on a livestream shouldn't be deplatformed.
fucking wild, man, just fucking wild.
Way to skip any nuance of the discussion at hand.
it's a torture stream. there's no fucking nuance. you sound like the people who are on the fence about gaza.
either you think people should be able to consent to being tortured on stream to death so a corporation can profit, or you don't. there's not a middle ground. I don't give a shit whether the people doing the torturing feel like they're being censored. they're sadistic filth.
Yeah… Maybe read the fucking discussion points before chiming in. I love how you think I’m on the side of the fucking corporation.
.
Oh OK, just realised this is an alt of one of those accounts with a modlog a mile long. Yeah just fuck off, I’m not interested in engaging. Everybody else has managed a perfectly civil discussion until you arrived.
.
Okay, you asked why others are held responsible and not the dead guy and what is the logic behind it.
I don’t get what’s not to get about that.
The platform didn’t put a stop to torture on their platform. They are responsible for that.
The others streamers tortured a guy to death. They are responsible for that.
What exactly do you think the the dead guy is responsible for?
No need to be a condescending jerk.
Why are they responsible for a grown adult making his own choices? What about an audience who directly funded the activity? Are they not even more directly responsible for the event that occurred?
Yes, there’s probably some question about whether manslaughter laws might apply.
Given it was a voluntary participation, how is this different from any other activity that involves potential self-harm? If a bunch of people freeclimb a deadly mountain with a 20% chance of death and stream it, and one of them dies, is that illegal? Assuming not, what’s the difference here?
His choice to participate in an activity that killed him.
I was serious. Sorry, didn’t meant to come of this way.
They aren’t but they are responsible in the sense that they shouldn’t give that shit a platform.
Yes the audience is responsible too.
The question falls apart with the word self-harm. Other people did that to him.
And freeclimb metaphor doesn’t work as well as harm is not the goal of free climbing. The goal is to reach the top. Dying is a risk you take. Besides if you would stream free climbing and egg the other person on to do stupid shit or make it more difficult to climb for the other person, and that person dies because of that, you would be partly responsible for that death.
Yes he is responsible for that.
But I think this is not a this-one-person-is-responsible-situation. Everybody in the chain of events that lead to this mans death is responsible in some way. Everybody who knew and did nothing.
There is a gradient of responsibility, of course. The person just watching isn’t as responsible as the person who is acting, but everybody is guilty to some degree. And to that degree people should be punished.
This statement could be used about literally any topic that certain groups of people find objectionable. The US is currently providing a very clear example of what happens when you use that argument.
Seeing as he was an active participant in it, this is the core of my questioning. Why is it considered ‘something others did to him’, and not ‘something he did to himself’? He could have left at any time, but he chose to stay and remain in the activity.
Harm was not the direct goal of this stream either. The goal was to see how long they could stay awake. Heck, take boxing. Boxers still die every year, and that’s a much more obvious example of harm being the direct goal of the activity. Nobody is seriously suggesting that boxing should be criminalised, or that participants should be prosecuted.
I agree that everybody involved is in some way indirectly responsible. However I’m unclear that it’s actually illegal. Morally reprehensible, but morality is a very subjective opinion and one I’m very hesitant to let platforms start deciding on my behalf.
Maybe but in what way my statement could be used has nothing todo with the conversation we are having.
I used it specifically in the context of torture.
Quoting the article:
Because letting someone do something to you is still another person doing something to you.
As long as we don’t know why he stayed we can’t be sure if it was because of trauma or greed.
That’s the stated goal but from context/article it is reasonable to assume that fucking with the guy was a goal too.
Well I don’t think saying because one fucked up thing exists that makes it okay that we tolerate other fucked up things is a good point. There is certainly a discussion to be had about the morality of boxing. In my opinion at least.
Well I think there are some things we can all agree on are not okay. Torture for example.
Yes, but was it illegal? The point being that our opinions of morality don’t, and shouldn’t, matter. The only thing that should matter is whether it breaks the law, and any ramifications of that.
Consent is a thing. If you agree to something, and physical harm happens as a reasonably unexpected outcome, the other party is usually not held responsible.
That said, depending on circumstance I can see the other streamers having some responsibility for his death.
What I don’t see is how the platform is reasonably expected to make judgement calls about this sort of content without descending into censorship. Prior to death, none of what had been done was illegal. Expecting them to cut off the stream would have been no different from other corps removing material they find morally objectionable.
I agree with you about the morality. That’s not the point. Censorship is a major problem in the world today, and encouraging more of it is something we need to be wary of. Self-censorship is especially insidious, and expecting companies to self-censor leads to all sort of undesirable outcomes. That’s why we have laws, so that it’s (mostly) clear and unambiguous where the line is.
In the EU platforms can be found guilty for what they publish though. It is the platform’s responsibility and duty to check whether their content is violating the law or not.
If a German newspaper were to publish an ad advocating for the murder of an ethnic group, both the creator of the ad and the newspaper would face charges.
I can’t say much more about the rest but there are certainly legal standards for boxing that need to be abided for a boxing event to be legal. This includes having medical staff on site, a referee which manages the match, gloves being mandated for the boxers etc. If these standards aren’t held, you can charge a boxer for participating in an illegal fight and manslaughter should the other boxer die.
Fair point. Given how quickly these trends can pop out of nowhere, countries probably need to start creating laws covering general physical stupidity.
Because they by running a business are responsible to ensure that they don’t promote or willfully ignore harm brought about wholly or in part by their actions or negligence.
For actually moral folks the minimum the law requires is a starting point not the last word.
Eg moral folks ask is there anything I am doing that causes harm or anything I’m not doing that I reasonably ought to do to prevent it.
Smart people too as many governments take a dim view of dodging responsibly and will invent new laws to regulate you.
So… Like the payment processors banning all immoral transactions from their network? Is that what we’re supporting?
No I’m supporting shut down of streaming channels that appear to show abuse or harm in a non functional context that is either non consentual or that no reasonable person would consent to.
In other words, you’re declaring that they should exercise their moral judgement to remove immoral content.
Duh
I’d imagine inducing stress and manipulation if anything. Pormanove and the fourth guy were and are both mentally challenged and thus more easily manipulated and coerced. Also no way you don’t see the signs coming from your “friend” after streaming together for more than a year and a half
Well. Devil’s advocate, they are holding the streaming service responsible because they didn’t block the stream, which presumably would presumably disrupt the streamer’s actions. I don’t personally think Kick should be responsible at all.
Yeah, I don’t see how they’re responsible either, but I’m getting lots of emotional replies and nobody actually seems to want to admit they’re advocating censorship. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing.
Sometimes censorship is good
Nobody has ever denied that censorship can sometimes be good. The problem has always been who gets to decide when it’s good and when it isn’t?
Something being subjective and something being untrue aren’t the same thing
Okay. Fine. Who do you want to have control of what you can see, hear and read?
I think Kick should be able to censor streams on their service that are showing torture. They are not, and should not be, obligated to provide their services to show that content.
Law is law. No emotion involved
Yeah, like all those laws about Israel and Palestine and such. Definitely no pesky emotions involved, no sirree
The law that oblige all UN stste members to stop isrsel terrorisms? Yes they should be applied
Yes they should. Not my point. You still trying to argue that law doesn’t involve emotion?
That’s not what ‘law is emotionless’ means. It means that the law should be applied regardless of the emotions of the culpable person, their family, or sympathizers.
Ok? Nowhere in this discussion has it been suggested otherwise
You claimed that the platform and the guys who was responsible of his death shouldn’t be punished although that is not what the law say
Ok… Looking through your profile, I’m guessing you’re French speaking. That is not at all what I said or meant, neither is it what the law says (the law hasn’t said anything, since by definition there needs to be a trial and conviction before the law can be considered to have said anything).
Yeah I don’t think the company should be legally responsible, since the streamers were investigated for abuse and subsequently cleared by police. Was there something the platform was legally obligated to do further? We can say it was morally wrong to allow the streaming of that type of content, yes
Yeah, I wouldn’t watch it. I also don’t watch boxing or football. They probably should have shut them down if they are policing their streams at all.
It’s a difficult situation to explain, and it will be even harder to judge.
What seems to be true is that they had a hold on him. They seemed to abuse his mental weaknesses, and regularly made themselves look like benefactor for “saving him from himself” and making him earn a lot of money.
Sure he could have technically walked out any day, but when you’re under the influence of manipulative “friends”, I’m not sure it’s that easy.
Bear in mind that I’m not stating 100% proven facts.
Yeah, depending on circumstance I can definitely see a case being made for the streamers having some responsibility.
I don’t see how the platform should be responsible without opening up a can of worms involving censorship. Mastercard has proven we do not want fucking corps having that power.
It depends. Do you consider Twitch’s moderation to be to extreme? They definitely wouldn’t have let this slide. I’m pretty sure they used to stream on twitch and got banned there.
Kick is currently very lax when it comes to moderation (it’s their niche, their way of existing even with Twitch’s dominance), and I don’t think banning channels promoting group punching a dude would be a bad thing to censor.
Idk, I don’t watch videos so I’m unfamiliar with it.
I don’t think so either, but experience has taught me not to give companies any more power than necessary. If it needs to be done, pass a law for it.
Whenever you do something that results in the death of another human there needs to be an investigation. From what I can tell no culpability has been found yet, but there is at least some evidence that this person was being held against their will.
However, lots of European countries treat violence like the US treats porn so this could easily be something similar to the pearl clutching that would happen here if somebody was asphyxiated during a BDSM livestream.
Article 223-15-2 of the French Penal Code. This article punishes the fraudulent abuse of the ignorance or state of weakness of a minor or a person whose particular vulnerability is apparent or known due to age, sickness, disability, pregnancy, or psychological dependency
The french guy is free to do as he likes in the privacy of his own home. The line in the sand is the streaming of it online. Promoting violence is not ok and Kick should have banned them long before it got to this point
From a libé article:
I feel completely out of the loop when stuff like this happens.
I went looking around and found an article that expanded a lot on this topic, maxread.substack.com/p/who-killed-jean-pormanove
Damn, that was a good read.
This is helpful, thanks.
Story of my life. Major story drops, article provides little to no context, and everyone in the comments already seems to know what’s going on.
This happens constantly in my life, both online and offline; why does it seem like I’m always being left out? I’ve missed out on so many parties and events because of this issue.
In this case I am quite happy to be out of the loop, frankly. I can live in blissful ignorance of at least this stuff.
.
I guess I’m too old to understand what the hell Kick is or how grown people are making a living being childish bullies, but for Christ’s sake, they just killed courage the dog’s owner.
<img alt="" src="https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/a6291ad4-fe6a-4b29-9126-72373a16773a.jpeg">
Now I feel a little better Eustace he scared me as a kid
This is straight out of Black Mirror S7E1 and the idea behind the “Dum Dummies” site. 😭
What changed between the ‘months of torture’ and Naruto and Safine being arrested, and the '10 days ’ leading up to his death?
It sounds sick that the French government would decide a man is being tortured yet they’re not obligated to intervene… while at the same time they fine a company for not stepping in.
If this man was negligently killed, authorities and kick are to blame, but it’s the authorities that should’ve been the failsafe, not the company. I guess it makes sense that French politicians are Very Mad™ and Seriously Considering Bigger Punishments™.
Exactly the autorities should be help accountable too
Exactly. Law enforcement investigated and found no wrongdoing. They’re the ones who dropped the ball here. Was there something else Kick was legally obligated to do? I agree that there was a moral fuck up here resulting in somebody dying. But torture between competent consenting adults is legal. Just like we’re saying BDSM is okay
Also someone else mentioned the TV show Jackass and I just wanna know how some are drawing the line here. So are some of the dangerous stunts on Jackass ok or not? Why?
Boxing ,MMA.etc ?
https://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/id/45935560/two-japanese-boxers-die-brain-injuries-suffered-same-fight-card
Jackass stunts and fights aren’t sustained over multiple days ever
It seemed that for Jackass ultimately noone was killed. Also it seems that the participants were not in a vulnerable situation that was exploited, but engaged with full consent and were able to give consent.
It’s not the French government issuing the fine, it’s the Australian, where the company is hosted. They probably should have hosted themselves in the US and hid behind the first amendment
I’m not exactly a US constitutional lawyer, but I’m willing to bet that snuff films aren’t protected by the First Amendment.
Believe it or not, prolonged physical and mental torture is not speech, a religion, a function of the press, an assembly, or a petition. You could probably get some of the physical violence covered by the Second Amendment though, if you have a gun and just do a little of the South Park “he’s coming right for us” thing.
The autority should be held accountable too since they opened an investigation but did not force the streamers to temporarly stop streaming till the investigation is finished
I don’t think that’s a real issue. depending on how long this investigation goes, that would either be meaningless loss of revenue for these content creators, or an easy way to destroy the career of any other content creators too if a disgruntled viewer reports them falsely.
The investigation started in December 2024, the abusers was taken into custody then released unconditionally so i don’t see how the authorities are not responsible too
ok, that’s a different reason now, I can agree with that. maybe it shouldn’t be legally possible to consent to abuse like that. but a law forbidding that could have far reaching consequences, like if a medical treatment is very painful but it cannot be avoided because painkillers have alimited effect
Can someone point out the part where this wasn’t voluntary or the guy was held captive & not free to leave or end the voluntary abuse at any time?
It looks like idiots kink-playing too hard with extra fines to some platform while the morons try to escape accountability.
The company is still at fault for not banning such behavior on their service. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be violent and promote violence.
Violence is fine. What’s not fine is the permanent disfigurement or death of participants and the lack of preventative controls against that.
In a cage match, a participant would never be ignored long enough to stop breathing, like they did here.
This comment might provide some insights: lemmy.zip/comment/21080783
Also, IMO, voluntary or not, this goes over the edge, especially on the streaming part. If someone genuinely enjoys this, they can do it in private, and exactly as they like.
When money and popularity get involved, this prompts more extreme behavior, turning a willing masochist into a victim, and a game into a trap.
Besides, authorities could have at least checked up on him.
Sources for that information should be easy to cite, yet I notice none.
How do we tell real apart from fake performances? Should fake performances be private only when they already aren’t? Seems difficult to police without chilling freedoms.
Economic coercion needs to be controlled somehow. I guess the question is how to police actual abuse while permitting legal performances like the Jackass franchise of reality, slapstick comedy.
Kink playing is ultimately the responsibility of the top, if this was that.
It’s not, because they disregarded that person’s state of well-being in a continued way.
Is it just my ADHD, or did the article completely fail to mention why a streamer was forced by two other streamers to stay awake and ingest poison? Did they hold his family for ransom or something? I need context.
Neither it, nor several other articles linked by it have clarified this. Frustrating times.
His streams were about self deprecation, humiliation and abuse. He let those two guys abuse him to the limit and apparently they went over the limit.
It was with consent but they still be charged with murder and probably get convicted too.
This went on for weeks, months, and nobody interfered. They just gave a platform for the abuse.
If I understood properly the guy was a kinda homeless person that the two fuckers “hosted” in their house in exchange for participating (being tortured) in their streams. He was disabled or mentally challenged too, and there was another victim of theirs that was handicapped in the flat too.
The alarm has been raised for at least 8 months but neither the police nor the national agencies nor the minister contacted either did or decided to do anything. Every time the police came the victims were saying that all was good and they gave their consent to anything, but on stream they were often asking to call the cops, an ambulance or trying to leave and the two fuckers barred them the exit and threatened to beat them or throw them back to the streets. So they were basically held hostage.
The whole thing is a disgrace. It was the most viewed French language stream on Kick for months, two vulnerable people being tortured on stream and nobody did anything.
From what I understood the two fuckers will probably get a 25 to 30 years of jail sentence, and some of the people who donated money to them to encourage them in the torture also risk prison time. Which I fucking hope they get.
Someone took upon himself to save all the worst clips and try to raise the alarm, they have more than 300 hours of stream capture with evidence of torture and other wrongdoings.
I hardly even know what kick is, i assumed it’s just twitch for more degenerate people ald less rules. But why does kick has to pay suck a insane fee? They brodcasted it and didn’t do anything when people raised awareness, sure. But the main takeaway is always that people do and watch sick garbage if they have the opportunity. Hell they even pay for it and encourage it.
And they made money on it.
When they were alerted to it, they did nothing. They simply allowed it to continue, and profited from it.
Worse than that, Kick even gave this channel money and featured it. They are complicit.
I really hope they go after peoppe who donated too. Disgusting peoppr all around.
There is even a sequence where the two fuckers try to force him to say that “if he dies on stream, it won’t be their fault” but the fault of his “shitty health situation”. He flat out refused.
They perfectly knew they were in the process of killing him.
That is murder. These fuckers should be spending the rest of their damn lives in a prison cell.
So all those “red room” legends were true. It’s just that instead of being in the dark web, it was broadcast in public for the world to see. How dystopian.
More ad revenue on the public web
The frog in the water pot and the bystander effect are closely linked, methinks.
After the whole spiking their own wifes and mothers to pass around for rape online, including with making videos and now this, i am starting to think France has a pretty bad problem with psychopaths and a society that is looking away or even encouraging it rather than stepping in.
Kinda homeless? The victim is the largest french gaming streamer and definitely not homeless. There’s indications of mental health problems but it’s only visible on camera. There are no documents verifying it unfortunately (though it seems evident). The two killers are people he’s known and hung out with for years.
Edit: The apartment was rented specifically for this stream.
It’s sort of an extension of lolcow culture. This is a vid I recommend to watch to understand it.
youtu.be/vJWBVaNdAFg
Black mirror episode IRL.
$49 M fine? So, basically, legal for a fee?
I googled and apparently kick has been doing 180 million revenue yearly, so this is refreshingly high in terms of a fine.
So they can do this 3.5 more times before it starts costing them money?!
Revenue != profit
Depending on margins, it can make a company unprofitable pretty quick if they’re hit by a fine of nearly 30% of their revenue.
Yes
cost of doing business, as part of thier budget.
I mean, Kick probably could be suspending people who stream for an unhealthily long time, maybe suspend his abusive friends, but they didn’t force him to take any actions resulting in his death imo.
What exactly is the crime?
Yes. I saw a video on getting around Flock’s AI cameras and he mentions the numerous million dollar lawsuits that regularly result from misuse of their data and the glitches that cause people to have guns pointed at their heads by police.
It is a cost of doing business. Saying ‘I’ll sue you!’ To them is as threatening as charging someone a little extra for that order of coffee they made.
Sorry, I was making an oblique reference to section 230 that says an internet publisher isn’t responsible for what users use their medium for. Even if it is is indecent.
What does US law matter to France in this case?
Whoops didn’t click the right reply button