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.
Well sure, it could have been something he drank, or maybe he wanted to kill himself and took something on purpose. We’ll probably end up finding out more at some point.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
“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.”)
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.
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.
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
Well sure, it could have been something he drank, or maybe he wanted to kill himself and took something on purpose. We’ll probably end up finding out more at some point.
The fuck
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.
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/
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.
Was it real or simulated? I haven’t seen any article make a definitive statement.
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.
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”.
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
Source