427
They deserve to pay every dime of it. They exploited this man's torture with full knowledge of what they were doing to him on stream after multiple complaints
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
427 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
74519 readers
3769 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can someone point out the part where this wasn't voluntary or the guy was held captive & not free to leave or end the voluntary abuse at any time?
It looks like idiots kink-playing too hard with extra fines to some platform while the morons try to escape accountability.
Viral compilation threads have shown Pormanove being hit, strangled, and fired at with paintball guns while streaming with Naruto and Safine, whose lawyers claim they hold “no responsibility.”
The company is still at fault for not banning such behavior on their service. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to be violent and promote violence.
Violence is fine. What's not fine is the permanent disfigurement or death of participants and the lack of preventative controls against that.
In a cage match, a participant would never be ignored long enough to stop breathing, like they did here.
This comment might provide some insights: https://lemmy.zip/comment/21080783
Also, IMO, voluntary or not, this goes over the edge, especially on the streaming part. If someone genuinely enjoys this, they can do it in private, and exactly as they like.
When money and popularity get involved, this prompts more extreme behavior, turning a willing masochist into a victim, and a game into a trap.
Besides, authorities could have at least checked up on him.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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
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.
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 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?
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
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.
load more comments
(41 replies)
I feel completely out of the loop when stuff like this happens.
I went looking around and found an article that expanded a lot on this topic, https://maxread.substack.com/p/who-killed-jean-pormanove
load more comments
(4 replies)
Should get double finned for torturing Jean + Raja almost beating someone to death on stream.
load more comments
(4 replies)
From libé article:
Raphaël Graven, 46, known under the pseudonym Jean Pormanove, died near Nice during a live broadcast on August 18 on the Australian video platform Kick after more than 12 days of live streaming showing him and another man being assaulted and humiliated by two people. Followed by nearly 200,000 viewers, the “Jeanpormanove” channel had for months shown Raphaël Graven being insulted, beaten, having his hair pulled, threatened, and even being shot at without protection with paintball projectiles. According to the channel’s promoters, the content was staged.
Deputy Minister for Digital Affairs Clara Chappaz on Tuesday announced her intention to sue the Kick platform for “breach.” She made the announcement after a meeting convened at Bercy with officials from several ministries (Justice, Interior, Economy) and two independent authorities, accusing Kick of violating the 2004 Digital Trust law.