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?