Kick faces possible $49M fine after French streamer Jean Pormanove dies on air - Dexerto
www.dexerto.com
Kick could be hit with a $49M penalty after the death of French streamer Jean Pormanove, who died following “ten days and nights of torture.”
  • Womble@piefed.worldEnglish
    10 months

    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.

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10 months

      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.

      • oozynozh@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        10 months

        Kick CEO was a top 5 donor to the channel in question. Not only did they know, they actively encouraged it.

    • frongt@lemmy.zipEnglish
      10 months

      Was it real or simulated? I haven’t seen any article make a definitive statement.

            • Bob Robertson IX @discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              10 months

              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.

                • Bob Robertson IX @discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
                  10 months

                  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.

    • idntknow@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10 months

      It is insane how it is even possible to live stream the torture of someone for months without any law enforcement getting involved.

      • PerogiBoi@lemmy.caEnglish
        10 months

        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.

          • UniversalBasicJustice@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            10 months

            Seriously, all these comments about fucked-up and predatory content…has anyone considered quitting Facebook? Or just algorithmically-served content altogether? Am I crazy for preferring to build and do my best to expand my own silo rather than having billionaire-owned corporations do it for me?

    • jagermo@feddit.orgEnglish
      10 months

      OK, but - could he not leave? Or say “i do not want to”? I don’t get it

      • mrdown@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10 months

        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

          • DanWolfstone@leminal.spaceEnglish
            10 months

            He actively wanted out as seen by the desperate text sent to his mother saying how he “felt like a hostage” that was read aloud by one of his abusers on stream, but due to coersion both financially and socially. In one of the streams his abusers openly brag about how if he doesnt participate in their “game” they’ll take the keys for his car and his apartment until he does.

            There’s generally a lot of factors that add up to staying in an abusive situation. From his point of view its likely that there didn’t seem much of an option for him outside of this.

          • Kellenved@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            10 months

            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

            • jagermo@feddit.orgEnglish
              10 months

              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.

  • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    10 months

    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.

      • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        10 months

        Well the article is about the platform potentially being fined 49M, so… whatever charge they’re being fined for?

        • killeronthecorner@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10 months

          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.

          • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            10 months

            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?

            • hobwell@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              10 months

              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.

              • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                10 months

                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?

                • hobwell@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  10 months

                  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.