$49 M fine? So, basically, legal for a fee?
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.
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 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.
It is insane how it is even possible to live stream the torture of someone for months without any law enforcement getting involved.
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.”
I mean, the footage is all public, right? Why shouldn’t the cops be able to watch it with their own eyes, and determine if it’s kosher?
execution of the law is always more complicated than we want it to be. They could have been let off as the investigation continued if the victim told the cops “i did everything with full consent and it was all an act for the entertainment of the stream.”. Cops/W/e the french version of DA is would possibly need to continue the investigation to show that either he was unable to consent to the actions or it was a lie that there was consent.
I’m just a layperson and maybe it was more cut and dry and the cops really dropped the ball. It just doesn’t seem so cut and dry legally to me. Will be interesting to see the outcome of the investigation from this.
You know how NDAs are generally not enforceable in a court of law, no matter if the person “consented” or not, because some things are just not legal, and chances are theyre not knowledgeable enough to make that decision anyway? Kind of like how Statutory Rape works? Yeah. That, but with actual fucking torture thats broadcast publicly.
Huh? Why are you bringing up NDA’s?
To be clear, the acts committed by these people are heinous. They should and hopefully eventually will face jail time. I’d be happy for employees or executives of kick to face similar. They are complicit as well.
My argument was that execution of the law is hard and never as easy as we would like it to be.
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
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?
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.
Was it real or simulated? I haven’t seen any article make a definitive statement.
deleted by creator
Should we not be able to watch Reservoir Dogs because there’s simulated torture in it?
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Not a straw man. An actual point.
deleted by creator
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
Nice victim blaming.
No, no, not at all, i just do not unterstand it.
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.
Yeah, so go after these fuckos. They deserve even more outrage than the plattform which has obvious shitty protection protocolls
I wholeheartedly agree
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.
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.
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 think the company should be legally responsible, since the streamers were investigated for abuse and subsequently cleared by police. Was there something the platform was legally obligated to do further? We can say it was morally wrong to allow the streaming of that type of content, yes
Yeah, I wouldn’t watch it. I also don’t watch boxing or football. They probably should have shut them down if they are policing their streams 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
