Self-harm or humiliation on live streams: The only limits are set by the viewers

The death last Monday of a French streamer known for filming himself being beaten and humiliated to please his followers has sparked controversy over the type of content hosted on platforms like Kick, where anyone can watch live streams with virtually no oversight beyond the platform’s own loose guidelines.

It has also exposed a corner of the web, easily accessible to minors, where audiences become hooked on watching someone self-harm — sometimes to the point of death. One debate is whether this content is controlled at all, and if any measures in place are sufficient. Another is whether the streamers themselves should be protected, even from themselves.

Last Monday, when Raphaël Graven — known online as Jean Pormanove — died at the age of 46, about 10,000 people were watching the live stream. The Nice prosecutor’s office has opened an investigation to determine the responsibility of each participant in the broadcast, which had been ongoing for several days, as well as the causes of Pormanove’s death, although an autopsy ruled out on Thursday that it was due to the blows he received.

At the end of January, a 24-year-old Chinese streamer also died live during a broadcast of a challenge known as mukbang: she accepted challenges to eat for more than 10 hours straight and consumed exorbitant amounts of food, eventually reaching 300 kilograms.

In Spain, there have been no deaths, but there have been cases of people humiliating and self-destructing on live streams. The best-known case is that of Simón Pérez, who became involuntarily famous years ago for a video in which he recommends fixed-rate mortgages with a colleague, both appearing to be under the influence of drugs.

Pérez has now carved out a niche in hours-long live streams, during which he sometimes falls asleep. People pay to watch content where he is encouraged, insulted, and offered money to humiliate himself. He has poured a bucket of vomit over his head and has been seen drinking his own urine. He has smeared his body with cold lasagna and even bitten into the moldy lasagna — all in exchange for small amounts of money.

If someone believes they are witnessing illegal content online, they can report it on the platform where it is broadcast or go to the police if it involves a crime. In Europe, the applicable legislation is the European Digital Services Act (DSA), under which platforms are required to notify authorities if they suspect certain serious crimes, according to sources from Spain’s Ministry for Digital Transformation. They clarify that authorities intervene only if the content constitutes incitement to suicide, affects minors, or involves criminal behavior toward third parties, such as harassment, exploitation, or distribution of illegal material. In cases where someone self-harms or humiliates themselves live, Spanish law does not provide any explicit prohibition, since self-harm is not a crime, the same sources note.

Borja Adsuara, an expert in digital law and communication, says he finds viral social media challenges in which people, for example, throw themselves from high cliffs, terrifying. But he explains: “Article 20 of the Spanish Constitution states that the only limit to freedom of expression and information is the law itself, so we can only distinguish whether the content is legal or illegal. Not whether it’s in bad taste, inappropriate, dangerous... We may like it or not, but no one is forcing us to see it. If we’re allowed to remove what we don’t like from the internet, that would be censorship. And the only censorship that’s allowed is if the content could be harmful to minors.”

Enric Armengou, a psychiatrist specializing in suicidal behavior, says that smoking isn’t a crime either, but in some places it’s prohibited because we know it’s bad for your health. He gives another example seen in football stadiums: “At matches, when the typical naked guy comes across the field, producers follow the rule not to broadcast those images. Why? So that no one thinks of doing it, because you won’t be on TV. It’s pure and simple censorship. Wouldn’t it make common sense to censor a series of behaviors that we know are not good, even if they don’t constitute a crime?”

Armengou also explains what mechanisms can lead a person to self-harm in a live stream or allow themselves to be humiliated in exchange for money on a platform. “There are three aspects: the first is a way to make money. I put myself at risk, but even though there’s danger, I think I can control it. But, like everything, you cross red lines, like a person who self-harms: the first day you slap yourself, the second you punch yourself, the third you cut yourself, the fourth you cut yourself harder... and in the end, you don’t stop because this addictive function is reinforcing. The more you do it, the more you want.”

“The second aspect is that there may be an attachment trauma behind it,” he continues. “When there’s an existential void, everything gives you sensations. If you feel like your life is empty and that nothing’s worthwhile, social media and these challenges make you visible. You feel like you’re someone, and if you do it more, even more so. The third aspect would be the search for validation. I’m gaining likes, and no matter how tacky what I do is, I feel like I’m a character, and that character fills the existential voids.”

When asked whether there is sadism in people who consume this type of content and become hooked on violent or humiliating scenes, the psychiatrist replies: “There is a certain sadism. Social media, in any case, creates an emotional distance that makes you feel less guilty than if you saw it in person. Anonymity also encourages the consumption of this type of content. And there’s a third element, which I’ve discussed with patients addicted to violent content, which is the release of aggression. Sometimes, even just watching it relieves tension.”

Could action be taken in cases where a streamer accepts challenges from the audience that are dangerous to their health or life? The Spanish Ministry of Digital Transition explains that many people who expose themselves to humiliation or harmful behavior for money may be considered vulnerable due to addictions, eating disorders, or financial need; “but intervention can only be carried out if there is exploitation, coercion, or a crime.” The ministry sources add that, from a social and health perspective, protection could be justified, but legally, vulnerability alone does not automatically make the behavior illegal.

Adsuara argues that it could, because the DSA has gone a step further. “It has said that, apart from illegal content, which must of course be removed, all content that, although legal, violates the rules and terms of use and the network’s rules can also be removed from social networks.”

He adds: “If it is believed that such content violates human dignity and may, through imitation, incite similar behavior, action can be taken.” Suicide is not a crime; but incitement is. “And so is inducing self-harm, as well as public humiliation and abuse [offenses against moral integrity], as in the case of the YouTuber who induced a homeless man to eat Oreo cookies filled with toothpaste,” he explains.

The European Commission applies the Digital Services Act (DSA) to platforms with more than 45 million users; for smaller platforms, national authorities are responsible. In Spain, the body in charge will be the National Commission of Markets and Competition (CNMC), but, Adsuara says, it has not yet been given the powers to enforce the DSA, which came into effect in February 2024.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition