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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
“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.”)
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.
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”.
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
It is insane how it is even possible to live stream the torture of someone for months without any law enforcement getting involved.
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.
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.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/article/outcry-over-french-streamers-death-on-air-as-authorities-probe-allegations-of-abuse/
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.
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.
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.
As long as you give a platform to the right wing, laws never apply to you.
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.
OK, but - could he not leave? Or say “i do not want to”? I don’t get it
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
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
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.
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”.
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.
oh no!
anyway.
deleted by creator
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”.
The fuck