This is straight out of Black Mirror S7E1 and the idea behind the “Dum Dummies” site. 😭
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.
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
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.
It is insane how it is even possible to live stream the torture of someone for months without any law enforcement getting involved.
As long as you give a platform to the right wing, laws never apply to you.
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.
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
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.”
OK, but - could he not leave? Or say “i do not want to”? I don’t get it
He could.
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
Was it real or simulated? I haven’t seen any article make a definitive statement.
“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.”)
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”.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
deleted by creator
The fuck
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Law is law. No emotion involved
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
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 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.
Damn, that was a good read.
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
From 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.
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
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
deleted by creator
Money truly justifies all.
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.
deleted by creator
