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.
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.