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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
Other parties are being held responsible for what?
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 the article is about the platform potentially being fined 49M, so… whatever charge they’re being fined for?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).