In the EU platforms can be found guilty for what they publish though. It is the platform's responsibility and duty to check whether their content is violating the law or not.

If a German newspaper were to publish an ad advocating for the murder of an ethnic group, both the creator of the ad and the newspaper would face charges.

I can't say much more about the rest but there are certainly legal standards for boxing that need to be abided for a boxing event to be legal. This includes having medical staff on site, a referee which manages the match, gloves being mandated for the boxers etc. If these standards aren't held, you can charge a boxer for participating in an illegal fight and manslaughter should the other boxer die.

This statement could be used about literally any topic that certain groups of people find objectionable. The US is currently providing a very clear example of what happens when you use that argument.

Maybe but in what way my statement could be used has nothing todo with the conversation we are having.

I used it specifically in the context of torture.

Seeing as he was an active participant in it, this is the core of my questioning. Why is it considered 'something others did to him', and not 'something he did to himself'? He could have left at any time, but he chose to stay and remain in the activity.

Quoting the article:

On August 18, 46-year-old Raphaël Graven, better known as Jean Pormanove, died in his sleep while live on Kick. In the days and even months prior, he had reportedly endured extreme violence, sleep deprivation, and forced ingestion of toxic products at the hands of two fellow streamers known as Naruto and Safine.

Because letting someone do something to you is still another person doing something to you.

As long as we don't know why he stayed we can't be sure if it was because of trauma or greed.

Harm was not the direct goal of this stream either. The goal was to see how long they could stay awake. Heck, take boxing. Boxers still die every year, and that's a much more obvious example of harm being the direct goal of the activity. Nobody is seriously suggesting that boxing should be criminalised, or that participants should be prosecuted.

That's the stated goal but from context/article it is reasonable to assume that fucking with the guy was a goal too.

Well I don't think saying because one fucked up thing exists that makes it okay that we tolerate other fucked up things is a good point. There is certainly a discussion to be had about the morality of boxing. In my opinion at least.

I agree that everybody involved is in some way indirectly responsible. However I'm unclear that it's actually illegal. Morally reprehensible, but morality is a very subjective opinion and one I'm very hesitant to let platforms start deciding on my behalf.

Well I think there are some things we can all agree on are not okay. Torture for example.

No I'm supporting shut down of streaming channels that appear to show abuse or harm in a non functional context that is either non consentual or that no reasonable person would consent to.

I can kind of see what you are trying to say, but I don’t really agree with your conclusion.

I’d make the distinction that free climbing, while dangerous, is a recreational activity. I can reasonably conceive of people watching that for entertainment. There also isn’t anything morally questionable about it.

On the face of it, I don’t think you could reasonably argue that torture is a pastime.

All of that aside, torture is against international law. It is illegal in all circumstances.

From the United Nation Convention Against Torture:

“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification for torture.”

For that reason, I would say the platform did have an obligation to de-platform it.

Arguably, the police should probably have put a stop to it as well.

Yes, that is the law. You are required not to broadcast death and to create circumstances in which the likelihood of this is minimised.

That's not calling for censorship because it doesn't preclude a level of consensual harm that doesn't lead to high risk of death.

As I said earlier, your point stands: it is not for these platforms to act as moral compasses for viewers of consensual but provocative content.

However, that's irrelevant to the law which wants to avoid incentivising people dying / being killed on broadcast streams for a profit.

I think this is ratified by the fact that there will be less of a burden of blame on the service provider if this proves not to be the case

Because we don't want them censoring anything they find objectionable. Like porn. Or abortion material. Or LGBT stuff. Need I go on?