Kick and the Death of Jean Pormanove: When Streaming Platforms Cross the Line

Why the Death of Jean Pormanove on Kick Is a Wake-Up Call for Streaming

This story hit me like a punch to the gut. Jean Pormanove-real name Raphaël Graven-died live on Kick after what can only be described as a marathon of streamed humiliation. For twelve days, audiences egged on and rewarded physical and psychological abuse as content. If that doesn’t stop you in your tracks as a gamer or viewer, it should, because this isn’t just about one tragedy. It’s about the dark side of a platform that openly courts the edge, promising creators more money and fewer rules. The question now is: When will the industry-and we as players and viewers—finally draw the line?

• Kick’s “anything goes” approach has real-life consequences, turning live streams into arenas for dangerous escalation.
• Beneath the marketing promises of creator freedom lies a business model that thrives on controversy and outrage.
• Regulations and platform accountability are lagging behind—and people are paying the price.
• The cycle of sensational content is fueling a race to the moral bottom, and traditional guardrails aren’t stopping it.

A Business Model Built on Fewer Rules—and More Risk

Let’s get real: Kick didn’t spring out of nowhere. It’s the brainchild of Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani, who watched as Twitch tightened moderation and spotted a niche. People were tired of bans and demonetizations, so why not offer the opposite? Cue Kick’s most hyped selling points: a whopping 95/5 split in favor of streamers (trouncing Twitch’s 50/50) and much looser moderation. Creators make more, viewers get “edgier” content, and the house takes a minimal cut—all underwritten by the deep gambling pockets of Stake, the crypto casino company tied to Kick’s founders.

The result? Big-name streamers like xQc and Amouranth got lured with eye-watering contracts ($100 million and $30 million respectively), while controversial figures like Adin Ross—perma-banned from Twitch for everything from hate speech to promoting porn—found safe haven on Kick for content virtually guaranteed to stir outrage. The message was clear: If you can’t play by the old rules, come cash in with us, no questions asked.

When Outrage and Abuse Become Prime-Time Content

But here’s what makes Kick stand out even from other “lawless” corners of the web: it actively incentivizes escalation. Streamers ramp up stunts for “donation goals”—rewards that go up as the content gets more reckless, more humiliating, or more violent. What would get you kicked off any other platform is literal business as usual here. That’s why you’ve got stories like Xena The Witch shooting at strangers on stream or Jack Doherty’s high-speed driving disasters broadcast for clicks.

The French streaming collective “Lokal”—of which Pormanove was a member—specialized in this so-called “trash content.” On Kick, viewers watched as he suffered slaps, chokeholds, and acts disturbingly close to outright torture, all in the name of entertainment and donations. This didn’t just slip through the cracks; it prospered and trended, which should make any gamer question what kind of “community” these platforms are really building.

Law, Regulation, and the Long Arm of Profit

This mess exploded into public view when French authorities launched a criminal investigation, Kick scrambled with PR statements, and politicians started asking tough questions. Yet for anyone following streaming trends, none of this is shocking. Regulators like France’s Arcom claim they can’t touch Kick because it’s based abroad; Kick, on the other hand, claims it’s reviewing policies and banning offenders—after the fact, not before. If you’re a gamer who cares about where the industry is headed, this should sound all too familiar. Remember Mixer’s collapse or Twitch’s endless whack-a-mole with problematic creators? Those platforms at least made an effort to draw some lines. Kick built its whole brand on erasing them.

Let’s be honest: As long as donations keep rolling in, and controversy translates to viewership, the fundamental incentives of Kick and rivals remain unchanged. A political candidate (like Trump, who streamed on Kick to over half a million viewers) only brings more eyes—and more normalization—for a platform whose controls are basically non-existent.

The Gamer’s Dilemma: Where Do We Go from Here?

So what does all this mean for us? Gamers have always flocked toward platforms that promise more freedom and better revenue, but Kick’s tragedy shows what happens when absolutely no one is minding the store. Sure, it’s easy to blame “the algorithm” or “the platform,” but the truth is that real people made these business decisions—and creators and viewers fed the beast with their clicks and cash.

As viewers and creators, we’ve got to ask harder questions. Is a streamer’s suffering really worth a few extra subs? Should platforms that look the other way get a free pass when their lax policies become deadly? The choices we make as a community—where we stream, who we promote, and what we tolerate—matter. Otherwise, the next tragedy is only a donation goal away.

TL;DR

Kick’s lax moderation and profit-heavy model directly fueled the tragic on-stream death of Jean Pormanove. The platform’s promise of “freedom” became a toxic loop, rewarding ever more shocking and dangerous content. Until the industry, regulators, and—most crucially—gamers take a stand, this pattern will only repeat.