- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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 really hope they go after peoppe who donated too. Disgusting peoppr all around.
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.
The frog in the water pot and the bystander effect are closely linked, methinks.
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.
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.
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.
Neither it, nor several other articles linked by it have clarified this. Frustrating times.
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
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
$49 M fine? So, basically, legal for a fee?
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?
This is straight out of Black Mirror S7E1 and the idea behind the “Dum Dummies” site. 😭
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
“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.
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?
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.
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
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
Black mirror episode IRL.
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, https://maxread.substack.com/p/who-killed-jean-pormanove
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.
Damn, that was a good read.
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
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
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.”
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.
Money truly justifies all.
deleted by creator
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.
courage the dog’s owner
Now I feel a little better Eustace he scared me as a kid
