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.
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.
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
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?
Something being subjective and something being untrue aren’t the same thing
Okay. Fine. Who do you want to have control of what you can see, hear and read?
Law is law. No emotion involved
Yeah, like all those laws about Israel and Palestine and such. Definitely no pesky emotions involved, no sirree
The law that oblige all UN stste members to stop isrsel terrorisms? Yes they should be applied
Yes they should. Not my point. You still trying to argue that law doesn’t involve emotion?
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.
Ok? Nowhere in this discussion has it been suggested otherwise
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
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.