Video Platform Kick Investigated Over Streamer's Death (bbc.com) 47
French prosecutors have opened an investigation into the Australian video platform Kick over the death of a content creator during a live stream. From a report: Raphael Graven -- also known as Jean Pormanove -- was found dead in a residence near the city of Nice last week. He was known for videos in which he endured apparent violence and humiliation. The Paris prosecutor said the investigation would look into whether Kick knowingly broadcast "videos of deliberate attacks on personal integrity."
The BBC has approached Kick for comment. A spokesperson for the platform previously said the company was "urgently reviewing" the circumstances around Mr Graven's death. The prosecutor's investigation will also seek to determine whether Kick complied with the European Union's Digital Services Act, and the obligation on platforms to notify the authorities if the life or safety of individuals is in question. In a separate announcement, France's minister for digital affairs, Clara Chappaz, said the government would sue the platform for "negligence" over its failure to block "dangerous content", according to the AFP news agency.
The BBC has approached Kick for comment. A spokesperson for the platform previously said the company was "urgently reviewing" the circumstances around Mr Graven's death. The prosecutor's investigation will also seek to determine whether Kick complied with the European Union's Digital Services Act, and the obligation on platforms to notify the authorities if the life or safety of individuals is in question. In a separate announcement, France's minister for digital affairs, Clara Chappaz, said the government would sue the platform for "negligence" over its failure to block "dangerous content", according to the AFP news agency.
Dangerous content (Score:1, Insightful)
You know what's more dangerous than "dangerous content" ?
Labeling stuff as "dangerous content".
Re:Dangerous content (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Nah. We're okay to label things like live streamed suicides and snuff films as "dangerous content," and to prohibit them. Not every slope is that slippery.
That's not what happened. Not every argument has to be strawmanned.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
There comes a point where you have to think, "does this inspire others to harm themselves or others?" If the answer is yes, then you shouldn't be sending that content out over the Internet. Snuff films, or rapes, or other criminal behaviors, it comes down to the same thing, you don't want to encourage others to repeat what they are seeing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's HIS dignity, not yours. He wasn't hurting anyone else. When the police investigated him because of his channel, their conclusion was that he was in full control of what was happening and he was doing it for money and fame. Where do you get off making decisions on how someone else should live their life when it doesn't concern you? Your "an affront to humanity" argument is rather weak when his actions don't affect you.
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, well, first of all, you're not talking about the same thing we were talking about. I was answering the above parent's question "If I want to kill myself and film it, why shouldn't I have the right to do so?". That's not the same situation as the one the article describes that you are talking about. So I'm going to try to answer the thrust of your point rather than the specific circumstances you're talking about.
An affront against human dignity is about more than just an individual person. It is an aff
Re: (Score:2)
... and I think you'll understand what I'm getting at, even if you don't agree with me or think this is insufficient to make a restriction on liberty warranted.
Thank you for adding this. It's what was on my mind the whole time I read that paragraph. The dignity of my family, company, country, etc.. MUCH less important to me than each members personal liberty.
No problem, there's definitely room for more than one take on matters like this. I'm sure we have more ground in common than not. I'm also well aware that on the collective-individual spectrum I fall quite far towards the collective side of things compared to others; I don't consider it right or wrong it's just my own value hierarchy.
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." -- John Stuart Mill 1859.
I'm certainly not going to argue against Mill's harm principle. However, I would consider harm to others to have a fairly broad meaning. Clearly there are some obvious examples
Re: (Score:2)
However, I would consider harm to others to have a fairly broad meaning. Clearly there are some obvious examples; but I can't help but wonder if "harm" can't include something a bit more nebulous and indirect.
This is very clarifying on where your thoughts are. I think we both realize what is physical and monetary damage to others and we'd both be in agreement that it's wrong. What you're eluding to here, however, is the idea that it somehow pains you (or the society in general) to watch or even know when I do something that's against your morals or liking, even though I am not physically forcing you to see my actions and you have every opportunity to walk away from. And that, my friend, is where your right to
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct that I was conflating the two subjects and I appreciate your sticking to the one that matters.
I think what you're not pointing out in your example of slavery as an "affront" is that slaves were forced into slavery against their will. Of course that is wrong and nobody's arguing for something like slavery to come back, although some would probably not mind that -- and, in a tangent, I could argue that we're all still slaves of just a different sort.
In the end, I suppose it comes down to where "liberty" falls in your value hierarchy. If you place it above all else, I'm sure what I'm saying must seem like madness.
I guess that's the crust of
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct that I was conflating the two subjects and I appreciate your sticking to the one that matters.
I think what you're not pointing out in your example of slavery as an "affront" is that slaves were forced into slavery against their will. Of course that is wrong and nobody's arguing for something like slavery to come back, although some would probably not mind that -- and, in a tangent, I could argue that we're all still slaves of just a different sort.
No problem. It wasn't my intention to suggest or set aside the fact that slavery is against a person's will, I considered that as granted when I mentioned that it was an impingement of their liberties; I just wanted to illustrate that it was more than that as well.
Even what's a slippery slope to most is not grounds for laws against or banning it. Case in point, take the treatment of gays throughout the ages. If you took a poll in the 50s on whether homosexual relationships should be legal, you would have gotten an overwhelmingly "No!" answer. Just because most people don't like something, it doesn't mean that it's wrong. If you ban someone killing themselves and filming it while doing so under the guise of it being an affront to human dignity, what's next? Why should prostitution be illegal? Should mutilating your body be illegal? Do note that, in my examples, I am only taking this stance when it involves adult humans wills (the term adult to be defined by local laws, I guess).
So, I fundamentally agree with your position here, which I believe is an argument against appealing to popular opinion when deciding what we ought to ban. I understand that your implied suggestion here is that when I am talking about "human dignit
Re: (Score:2)
It's HIS dignity, not yours. He wasn't hurting anyone else. When the police investigated him because of his channel, their conclusion was that he was in full control of what was happening and he was doing it for money and fame.
I believe I read that, in this particular case, he was complaining to people on the outside that they were going too far and he felt like he was truly being held prisoner. It sounds like, in this case, he really did not feel like his dignity was being considered.
The argument you're making seems to me to echo all of the arguments for doing nothing about hazing. You know, that all the participants want to do it. They signed up for it after all. It may be difficult to see in cases like this, but there's a line
Re: (Score:2)
If I want to kill myself and film it, why shouldn't I have the right to do so? You equally have right not to watch.
You can probably film your own death if you want, but pretty much everywhere has rules against distributing snuff films. That being said, there have been at least two [wikipedia.org] instances [wikipedia.org] that I know of where a person's death was filmed, and indeed broadcast on national television. Presumably these programmes were allowed to air because of their educational nature. Uncensored footage of, say, someone being hit by a train would probably be classed as a so-called "video nasty" and be banned.
The more pertinent question i
Re:EU jurisdiction ends where? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: EU jurisdiction ends where? (Score:2)
Did you even read my post?
I'll spell this out for you: Why is a company in Australia required to follow European laws?
Broader context: EU countries, especially France, tend to make demands of foreign websites that don't have anything to do with Europe other than Europeans can access them. They don't have to have a presence in Europe at all for that to happen.
Does this company have a presence in Europe? Summary doesn't say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The French started an investigation because he died in France while creating a live stream in France. That is normal and leads to questions.
Correct.
Was there a significant number of viewers in France?
Not relevant.
Did Kick have significant/sufficient knowledge of Pormanove's content? Did Kick have significant/sufficient knowledge of streaming into France?
Only relevant insofar as:
- Is there a treaty between the two countries that says it's relevant?
- Is it even a crime in Australia? If not, then it's a civil matter because they lack dual criminality. That also means the victim, or in this case the victim's family, will have to travel to Australia and sue to recover damages, not the French government.
Electronic or physical is not a big distinction
Totally false -- it's a very big distinction. Basically every country in Europe, in and outside the EU, have all sorts of laws against the c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, because you didn't simply own your dumb mistake, I'll just work on the assumption that what you posted was your own original research, which actually makes you look even worse. The case you referenced is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, now think carefully here: What the FUCK does the interstate commerce clause FROM THE US CONSTITUTION that ONLY APPLIES IN THE US have to do with anything between France and Australia? Because that's literally what this case was over, and somehow you got it in
Re: (Score:2)
I'll spell this out for you: Why is a company in Australia required to follow European laws?
It's not. What happened is illegal in Australia as well, you don't get to simply ignore laws when you step over the border. The lawsuit will be filed in Australia. Also a complaint with the eSafety commission in Australia is ongoing as well. Kick stands to get fined for the death of someone (regardless of where they live) under Australian law, and may be liable for negligence under Australian law. In Australia. Where Kick is based.
Re: EU jurisdiction ends where? (Score:2)
If theyâ(TM)re doing business in Europe, then they become liable to follow European laws. If they donâ(TM)t want to follow them they can choose to just not do business there.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're doing business in Europe, then they become liable to follow European laws. If they don't want to follow them they can choose to just not do business there.
Honest question: Are they doing business in Europe? Or is their content simply accessible from Europe and/or accepts posts from Europe? IMO, that makes a world of difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Most websites that don't sell an actual product are really in the business of advertising. Everything else, the videos, the articles, are just window dressing so they can get your eyes and advertise to you for profit. They are directly profiting from the connections and viewership of someone in France. Put another way, they are being PAID to advertise to a person in France. That seems really clearly like doing business in France to me.
You might argue that this would mean basically EVERY website is doing bus
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously haven't thought this through.
So first off, what's the penalty? A fine? If so, who do they collect from? And how do they collect it? In your head, are you picturing them putting a French policeman on a plane to Australia to kick the CEO's door in and demand the money? And if he doesn't pay, the policeman drags him back to France, turns him upside down, shakes him a bit, and waits for the money to fall out of his pockets? And more importantly, Australia would have nothing to say about that? Bett
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's not going to be a french police man on a plane. There's going to be a ban on them doing business in France (or the rest of Europe).
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's not going to be a french police man on a plane. There's going to be a ban on them doing business in France (or the rest of Europe).
So we've come full circle now. Are they doing business in France (or the EU)? I'll clarify this time... I mean financial transactions that France can actually block because the involve entities are within France (or the EU), as opposed to GP's view[^1]. If they have no such financial situation, and if this behavior is not against the law in the AU, then what's France got to do with it?
[^1] GP's view seems to be that advertisers paying a company in Australia that serves content that winds up being viewed by
Re: (Score:2)
And how is said ban enforced? IP block?
Re: (Score:2)
Are they doing business in Europe? ...
... (long rant about advertising supported sites) ... (no information about Kick's operation) ...
OK... so neither of us have that answer. You have a guess. You have mentioned nothing about where their servers are, where their people are, where their business is declared, registered marks, etc etc.. nothing indicating anything about their business at all, except a wild ass guess that they may profit from advertising in some form.
We're right back to where we started; Your comment of, "If they're doing business in Europe... (or if they're not) ..." I see no point to progressing this discussion without set
Re: (Score:3)
case of a psychiatrically-challenged individual live-streaming his own suicide.
The article says he "died in his sleep during a live broadcast".
Re:sounds like a fairly clear-cut (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy had apparently been streaming self harm and degradation for a long time. The suicide was just the last bit.
The streaming service (Kick) should have stopped this long before the suicide. I guess they were making money off this seriously disturbed person so they just let it continue.
Yeah to the free market!
Re:sounds like a fairly clear-cut (Score:4, Informative)
Mr Graven was found dead on 18 August. Local media reported the 46-year-old had been subject to bouts of violence and sleep deprivation during streams, and died in his sleep during a live broadcast. In a post on X the next day Chappaz, described his death as an "absolute horror", and said he had been humiliated and mistreated on the platform for months. A postmortem carried out later that week revealed Mr Graven's death was not the result of trauma or the actions of a third party. Local police have seized videos and interviewed a number of people they say were present when he died. They also disclosed Mr Graven had previously been spoken to by detectives and had "firmly denied" being a victim of violence, saying the acts he was involved in were staged to "create a buzz" and make money.
It's hard to saying dying in his sleep is a suicide without knowing the medical history and the results of a tox-screen.
Apparently his actions had been investigated and he said he wasn't a victim.
I'm not here to argue fault but sometimes choices that people make lead to unintended consequences so I wouldn't be quick to throw a streaming platform under the bus without knowing all the details. At some point someone reported his behavior to the authorities and they determined no further action was needed.
Re: (Score:2)
There is often an issue where victims of violence will deny that anyone is hurting them as well. Look at how long it took for many of the Epstein/Maxwell victims to come forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you can say the platform was enabling the behavior but to me seems more like a scapegoat. Could be some damming evidence out there that changes my mind however that was not included in the article or summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently his actions had been investigated and he said he wasn't a victim.
Negligence causing death doesn't require any testimony from the "victim". Whether he thinks he's a victim or not is irrelevant in a duty of care discussion under Australian law.
Re: sounds like a fairly clear-cut (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s the point - they didnâ(TM)t remove it when they became aware of the content that would fairly obviously lead to serious and/or permanent physical harm. By not removing it, and stopping the escalation of this guys acts, they contributed to his eventual death, and profited off it.
The CEO donated during that stream (Score:3, Informative)
not a good look
Re: (Score:2)
Source?