this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
428 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

74519 readers
4210 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 37 points 1 day ago (47 children)

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.

[–] UnfairUtan@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's a difficult situation to explain, and it will be even harder to judge.

What seems to be true is that they had a hold on him. They seemed to abuse his mental weaknesses, and regularly made themselves look like benefactor for "saving him from himself" and making him earn a lot of money.

Sure he could have technically walked out any day, but when you're under the influence of manipulative "friends", I'm not sure it's that easy.

Bear in mind that I'm not stating 100% proven facts.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, depending on circumstance I can definitely see a case being made for the streamers having some responsibility.

I don't see how the platform should be responsible without opening up a can of worms involving censorship. Mastercard has proven we do not want fucking corps having that power.

[–] UnfairUtan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It depends. Do you consider Twitch's moderation to be to extreme? They definitely wouldn't have let this slide. I'm pretty sure they used to stream on twitch and got banned there.

Kick is currently very lax when it comes to moderation (it's their niche, their way of existing even with Twitch's dominance), and I don't think banning channels promoting group punching a dude would be a bad thing to censor.

Idk, I don't watch videos so I'm unfamiliar with it.

don't think banning channels promoting group punching a dude would be a bad thing to censor.

I don't think so either, but experience has taught me not to give companies any more power than necessary. If it needs to be done, pass a law for it.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Article 223-15-2 of the French Penal Code. This article punishes the fraudulent abuse of the ignorance or state of weakness of a minor or a person whose particular vulnerability is apparent or known due to age, sickness, disability, pregnancy, or psychological dependency

[–] SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 day ago (9 children)

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.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

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?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] moodymellodrone@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago

Whenever you do something that results in the death of another human there needs to be an investigation. From what I can tell no culpability has been found yet, but there is at least some evidence that this person was being held against their will.

However, lots of European countries treat violence like the US treats porn so this could easily be something similar to the pearl clutching that would happen here if somebody was asphyxiated during a BDSM livestream.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

The french guy is free to do as he likes in the privacy of his own home. The line in the sand is the streaming of it online. Promoting violence is not ok and Kick should have banned them long before it got to this point

load more comments (42 replies)