The Dark Side of Online Livestreaming: When Consent Isn’t Enough

The recent verdict in the case of two French livestreamers, Safine Hamadi and Owen Cenazandotti, has shed light on a disturbing trend that is increasingly prevalent online. The pair was convicted of violence and incitement to hatred for their role in the death of 46-year-old Raphael Graven, also known as Jean Pormanove. Although they were cleared of causing Graven’s death, the verdict raises questions about the true nature of consent in the age of online streaming.

The ease with which individuals can now broadcast themselves on platforms like Kick has created a culture of voyeurism, where viewers are willing to watch others subjected to humiliation and abuse. While Graven had given his consent to participate in these stunts, it is clear that he was not fully in control of the situation. Consent implies a level of autonomy and agency over one’s own body and experiences; when individuals are coerced or manipulated into participating in online activities that involve physical or emotional harm, it is no longer a matter of consent.

The streamers’ defense that the violence and humiliation were scripted and partly staged raises questions about the blurring of lines between reality and performance on these platforms. When individuals are subjected to abuse and humiliation for the sake of entertainment, it becomes clear that the notion of “consent” is being stretched to its limits.

This case is not an isolated incident. Online streaming has created a culture where cruelty can be monetized and normalized. Graven had netted about €265,000 from his streams between 2021 and 2025, highlighting the lucrative nature of this industry. The ease with which viewers can access disturbing content has led to calls for greater regulation and moderation.

The investigations into Kick by Arcom and the Paris prosecutor’s office are a welcome step towards addressing these issues. However, it is clear that a more comprehensive approach is needed to tackle the root causes of this problem. Online streaming platforms must take responsibility for ensuring that their users are not subjected to abuse and humiliation, even if they have given consent.

The case also raises questions about the role of social media in perpetuating these trends. Both Hamadi and Cenazandotti were banned from posting on social networks for six months, but more needs to be done to prevent online platforms from becoming breeding grounds for cruelty.

In reality, consent must not be seen as a mere formality but rather as an opportunity to ensure that individuals are treated with dignity and respect online. The verdict in this case may have been “symbolic” according to Hamadi’s lawyer, but it is clear that the real issue at hand is not about punishment but rather about prevention.

Regulators and platform owners must take concrete steps towards addressing the root causes of this problem. They must work towards creating a culture where online streaming is used as a tool for good and not evil. Until then, we will continue to see the darker side of human nature play out on our screens.

The aftermath of this case will be critical in determining how regulators and platform owners respond to these challenges. Will they take concrete steps towards addressing the root causes of this problem or will they simply pay lip service to the need for greater regulation? The answer to this question will determine whether online streaming has become a force for good or if it continues to perpetuate the worst aspects of human nature.

Ultimately, creating a culture where online streaming is used responsibly requires a multifaceted approach. It demands that regulators and platform owners work together to address the root causes of this problem and prioritize the well-being of their users. Only then can we truly say that online streaming has become a force for good.