By John Q. Hosedrinker 
France is taking legal action against the Australian streaming platform Kick following the death of a French user during a livestream. The 46-year-old user, known online as “Jean Pormanove,” died during a 12-day live streaming marathon, prompting scrutiny of the platform’s handling of dangerous content. French authorities are investigating Kick for potential violations of laws regulating online content and the EU’s Digital Services Act, with penalties including potential imprisonment and fines. The probe will examine whether Kick knowingly broadcast content that attacked the user’s personal integrity.
Read the original article here
France to sue Australian platform Kick for ‘negligence’ after livestream death is the headline, and it’s grabbing attention for a good reason. It’s a stark reminder of the dark side of live streaming and the potential consequences when platforms prioritize engagement over safety and ethical considerations. It really makes you think about the role these platforms play and how they should be held accountable.
The heart of the matter seems to be this: Kick, an Australian streaming platform, is facing a lawsuit from France following a tragic incident that took place during a live stream. The French are arguing that Kick demonstrated “negligence” – essentially, that they failed to act responsibly, leading to a dire outcome. The details of the specific stream, though not explicitly laid out, suggest a scenario that was troubling and potentially dangerous, raising serious questions about the platform’s moderation policies and overall approach to content.
Now, it’s worth noting that Kick has a history that seems to be fueling the controversy. The platform reportedly emerged from the online gambling industry, with origins tied to paying streamers to promote gambling to children on another platform. When that practice was banned elsewhere, Kick was born, painting a picture of a platform that may not have the most robust approach to moderation. This history, combined with the allegations of promoting this type of content, paints a concerning picture.
The comments certainly don’t hold back, either. They highlight Kick’s “lawless” nature and the “depravity and degradation” allowed on the platform. Many people believe Kick actively promoted the stream in question because it was popular, not simply turning a blind eye. They question the platform’s responsibility in allowing such content to exist and flourish. Some are even calling for the platform to be shut down. This is a significant indicator of the community’s widespread outrage.
The fact that the platform is based in Australia also brings up some interesting points. One commenter notes the potential impact of Australian internet laws, hinting at a possible role for the government in addressing the issue. The idea of government intervention is certainly one potential outcome, and the Australian government may feel pressure to take action and apply pressure to end Kick.
The discussion also includes questions about the French police’s involvement. The French police were dispatched to the home in the past, and it raises questions of responsibility. Some raise this as a counter-argument for the lawsuit, while others focus on the platform’s alleged negligence, regardless of prior police investigations. It is, however, important to note the potential for a review of the police’s actions, independent of the lawsuit. This makes it a very multifaceted situation, with the potential for multiple inquiries and investigations.
There’s a definite contrast between the way platforms like Twitch and Kick operate. Twitch has its own problems, with past instances of problematic streamers, but they at least have some moderation policies in place, even if not everyone agrees with them. Kick, in contrast, is frequently described as a place where almost anything goes. That’s obviously attractive to some, but it comes with significant risks, as this case clearly illustrates.
The criticism of Kick extends to the very core of its business model. People note the platform’s apparent willingness to host content that other platforms, like Twitch and YouTube, wouldn’t touch. This, coupled with the claims of the CEO donating to the stream, reinforces the idea that Kick prioritizes engagement over any sense of ethical responsibility. It certainly seems that way to some.
It’s easy to see why this case is causing such a stir. It’s a collision of several key issues: the power of online platforms, the responsibility of content creators, and the potential dangers of unmoderated live streaming. The lawsuit is a clear signal that France is taking the issue very seriously and is prepared to hold Kick accountable for its alleged negligence.
The comments also get into the business of streaming more broadly, comparing Kick to its competitors and the larger market. Regardless of the platforms, the constant drive for audience engagement is present, but it seems Kick may be going further and farther. This situation seems to suggest a dangerous trend of content creation and consumption.
Some users take the time to express their distaste for Kick’s business model. A commenter calls it a “honeypot for actual psychopath surveillance” and states that it “might as well serve as a diagnosis”. The people consuming this type of content is “super fucked up”. It is clear from many users that they feel Kick should be shut down immediately.
Regardless, this lawsuit has the potential to set a precedent, raising questions about how platforms operate and forcing them to re-evaluate their approach to content moderation. It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds and the lasting impact it has on the world of live streaming.