Live

A streamer’s nightmare

Raphaël Graven, known online as Jean Pormanove, was a professional streamer on Kick who, for months, endured both physical and psychological harassment from other streamers living in the same house. These acts of violence were not hidden; on the contrary, they were broadcast live to attract viewers and generate income. The tragic climax occurred on Sunday during another livestream, when Graven lost his life.

The official cause of death has not yet been confirmed. Police have launched an investigation and plan to conduct an autopsy. However, the facts suggest that Graven had long been in an extremely humiliating situation, where his suffering became a commercial product. That thousands of viewers tuned in highlights how brutal content can be exploited for popularity in digital media.

Platform under scrutiny: Kick and its loose rules

Kick, an Australian streaming platform, positions itself as an alternative to Twitch but with much looser content moderation rules. Already in December last year, French media outlet Mediapart reported on Pormanove’s channel, highlighting the use of violence as entertainment. Kick’s policies allowed these pathological behaviors to escalate, as moderators failed to intervene promptly.

Another problem is the platform’s unclear legal status in the EU. French media regulator Arcom questioned whether Kick had a legal representative in Europe. Kick claimed that its legal representative was based in Malta. However, Malta’s digital services coordinator stated that they had received no formal notification regarding Kick’s operations in the country. This discrepancy raises questions about the effectiveness of EU rules and the enforcement of the Digital Services Act (DSA).

Could authorities have acted sooner?

Serious criticism is now aimed not only at the platform but also at authorities. France’s Minister for Digital Affairs, Clara Chappaz, described the case as “absolutely horrifying” and confirmed she had reported it to Arcom. She also emphasized that platforms have a legal obligation — not an optional duty — to combat illegal content.

Yet the public and media question why action came only after Graven’s death. Mediapart highlighted the problem on his channel in December, and in February, the French Human Rights League formally requested Arcom to intervene. The regulator simply forwarded the case to European institutions, a move criticized as evading responsibility.

Local police were also aware of the situation — they had been investigating the dissemination of videos depicting violence against individuals since December. In January, those abusing Graven were detained but quickly released. This decision, widely criticized today, may have allowed the abuse to continue until the fatal outcome.

DSA and enforcement challenges

The EU’s Digital Services Act was meant to be a breakthrough in tackling illegal content and online abuses. According to its rules, platforms must act quickly on reports of violence or harassment. In Kick’s case, this mechanism failed — either because the platform was not under real oversight, or because national authorities could not act effectively.

A European Commission’s spokesperson confirmed that it had inquired about Kick’s registered office and legal representative. Kick claimed representation in Malta, but the absence of formal information from Maltese authorities shows an institutional gap that allowed the platform to avoid accountability. Cross-border internet services thus paralyzed the effectiveness of regulations.

Moral and legal responsibility

Graven’s tragedy highlights the complex layers of responsibility. Kick, following a liberal approach, allowed months of violent content to be broadcast as “entertainment.” Both French and EU authorities had signals about the abuses, but their response proved ineffective.

Could this tragedy have been prevented? Did Arcom’s referral to European authorities amount to shifting responsibility? And why did the police release the abusers in January, even though the risk of further violence was clear?

The internet as a stage for violence

Jean Pormanove’s story shows that the internet is increasingly a space where the line between private tragedy and “content” dangerously blurs. Violence against Graven was not only tolerated but became a product consumed and commented on by viewers. This reflects a broader problem of normalizing harmful content in digital media.

In this context, the responsibility of platforms like Kick is not only a legal question but an ethical one. By profiting from viewership, did the company contribute to escalating violence? Similar questions apply to viewers who actively engaged with the streams, sustaining their popularity and economic incentive.

Written by

Shape the conversation

Do you have anything to add to this story? Any ideas for interviews or angles we should explore? Let us know if you’d like to write a follow-up, a counterpoint, or share a similar story.

Write a counterargument article Write a related article