this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
462 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

74736 readers
2510 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 39 points 1 week ago (66 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.

[–] SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week 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 18 points 1 week ago (2 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 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 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?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Something being subjective and something being untrue aren't the same thing

[–] SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Okay. Fine. Who do you want to have control of what you can see, hear and read?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I think Kick should be able to censor streams on their service that are showing torture. They are not, and should not be, obligated to provide their services to show that content.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Law is law. No emotion involved

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah, like all those laws about Israel and Palestine and such. Definitely no pesky emotions involved, no sirree

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The law that oblige all UN stste members to stop isrsel terrorisms? Yes they should be applied

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes they should. Not my point. You still trying to argue that law doesn't involve emotion?

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's not what 'law is emotionless' means. It means that the law should be applied regardless of the emotions of the culpable person, their family, or sympathizers.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ok? Nowhere in this discussion has it been suggested otherwise

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You claimed that the platform and the guys who was responsible of his death shouldn't be punished although that is not what the law say

Ok... Looking through your profile, I'm guessing you're French speaking. That is not at all what I said or meant, neither is it what the law says (the law hasn't said anything, since by definition there needs to be a trial and conviction before the law can be considered to have said anything).

[–] moodymellodrone@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 week 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 2 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (63 replies)