WelcomeWEFreedomWindsorEssexCounty-ActionCommunicationsRalliesResourcesSocialEventsWednesdayNightMeetings-ActivismAgoraAgorismCanadaCommonLawCommunityDataCentersDataCentresDoocracyFarmersMarketIntroductionsNaturalLawNewslettersOntarioOrganizingOutreachProjexProjexWikiRalliesResistanceAnalysisSoireesSoiréesWikiSpooksWindsorElectionsTop Subs
4
videos - - (+3|-0)
French Streamer Jean Pormanove died on stream after a marathon of live-streamed abuse(youtu.be)
6 commentsbyLarrySwinger
Add topics

Comment preview

[-]x0x70(0|0)

Part of the problem is platforms need objective rules. Moist makes a point that when the platform heard that it was going to go on for 10 days they should have put a stop to it on day one. But what is the threshold time they should have done that? How are they supposed to figure out that policy?

I think people getting hurt as entertainment is pretty much the lowest mode a human can take. You shouldn't want those users on your platform anyway because they are negative value people. Hence goatmatrix's one free speech exception beyond legal compliance is tighter than any other site.

But the problem is for the platform it is pretty difficult for them to write a policy that bans abuse beyond a certain duration and allows it at all. And there are a lot of viewers on pretty much all the platforms who would think that's pretty lame. There is a shocking number of people where that is their entertainment. But when trying to make objective black line rules that means no one can throw anything at each other. There is no object rule that can be made that doesn't end up very extreme.

There is an alternate solution. Instead of platforms being responsible for their users like they were a parent, people are responsible for their own actions. These people can be charged or sued. Of course the law has to do it retro-actively, which shows the point that's the only way to do it. So then why is Kick responsible to do what the law can't?

I'm a big fan of consequence based thresholds in law. There shouldn't be any law or site policy to prevent this. There should be response to it. The responsibility of prevention falls on the people who did it.

One last devil's advocacy, with kind of a point. People do die in their sleep. About 1 in 8 of us will. Everyone will die at some point and dying at 40 something isn't unheard of. I'm not saying they didn't have a hand. But the point is even in the best case if you make it a habit of abusing someone every day for a stream you are really gambling no matter what. So you just shouldn't do it. They are going to die one day, and it's going to look like you did it and be a pretty reasonable appearance.

parentlinkreply
[-]LarrySwinger0(0|0)

The platform doesn't need to make rules for borderline cases like these because there are laws in place. Torture is illegal. So they should've canceled the stream not based on their own ToS but simply to avoid being complicit. And contacted law enforcement.

One last devil's advocacy, with kind of a point. People do die in their sleep. About 1 in 8 of us will. Everyone will die at some point and dying at 40 something isn't unheard of. I'm not saying they didn't have a hand.

People don't randomly die in their sleep at 40, they do so at 80. It's like saying mRNA jabs are safe and effective even though people die right after taking them. If he's healthy there's about zero chance he would've died without the torture, thus they didn't just have a hand in it, they murdered him.

parentlinkreply
[-]jerryk0(0|0)

Why do people do this, exactly? Are they really this desperate for attention, and maybe money? Why, exactly, what's wrong with them?

parentlinkreply
[-]LarrySwinger0(0|0)

They're subhumans.

parentlinkreply
[-]jerryk0(0|0)

What made them subhuman? Why are they so confused, and self-destructive, Larry? Surely, it's not "genetic". What experiences made them behave this way?

parentlinkreply
[-]LarrySwinger0(0|0)

How am I supposed to know?

parentlinkreply