• trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    2 days ago

    Is anyone else bothered (but not surprised) by the fact that Amazon/Twitch agreed to cover it up for him? Seems pretty wild that they should be off the hook for working to protect his image after doing predatory shit like this.

    • TheBest@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think they kept it on the low because they don’t want people realizing that they’re viewing the contents of their whispers, even if you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

    • Xer0@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Everyone will forget about twitch’s involvement within a week. Just like every time literally any big event happens with any company.

        • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          They paid him to go away and to shut up. Twitch letting one of their most popular creators message sexual content to a minor over their platform for years is a PR nightmare. Shows the lack of oversight social media has. Why would they even allow a 12 year old the ability to private message a 30 year old to begin with?!

          Edit: and I’m sure twitch found more dirt going through all his communications. This pedo was even planning a meet up with this minor before the minors parent put a stop to it and notified twitch.

          • pelotron@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Beware that points like this suggest that messaging platforms should be monitoring all communications sent between users. If that’s the world you want to live in, ok, fine… But in this case the guy that committed the crime is the one who has been punished. Isn’t that the correct result?

            • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              I’m just saying that, maybe if you are a creator making content primarily watched by children, the trade off for making money (millions in this case.) off of our platform, is we get to monitor your communications with said audience on our platform? It’s like saying a banker who uses their work email to coordinate a crime. My work has email monitoring that looks for financial crimes because surprisingly people are dumb enough to use work email for elicit activities. Yes his messages to individuals are “private” but should they be when in a position of power? He messaged a minor through twitches chat (twitch is essentially his whole job) and twitch has NO safeguards to prevent abuse?!

  • Chozo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    How quickly we went from “I didn’t do it” to “I did it, but it wasn’t that bad”.

  • 🍔🍔🍔@toast.ooo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    2 days ago

    very funny to release what is clearly a meticulously crafted response to career ending allegations of pedophilia while still staying in character as like the bad guy in a movie where a golden retriever learns to play counter strike

  • MikeOToxin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m no fucking predator or pedophile

    Well… If the person was a minor, and you weren’t, and you knew they were young and the messages were ‘leaning inappropriate’, you’re a pedophile.

    Also a predator.

    • weastie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I hate to get so semantical but using the word pedophile incorrectly just desensitizes the word. Pedophilia means being attracted to children, primarily meaning before or in the early stages of puberty, usually younger than 13. In fact, many pedophiles would not be attracted to someone aged 15+ because they are typically exclusively or primarily interested in prepubescent bodies.

      That doesn’t mean this guy isn’t a total asshole, but he’s not a pedophile, and I think anyone can understand an adult sexting an older teen, while still absolutely horrid, is quite different from sexting a child.

      Once again, absolutely not defending this guy, I don’t even know who he is… but I think it’s important not to desensitize the word.

      • skittlebrau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I’ve attended a seminar for child protection before that was delivered by a former cop (that worked in the sex crimes division) and they said the exact same thing - in the context of correctly making the distinction between paedophile and sex offender.

        Sounds like he was grooming her.

      • MikeOToxin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I know the distinction, but hebephile doesn’t carry the same weight. Also, I believe I read the minor was 12. So… Pedo.

        I stand by what I said. We don’t need to be apologistic towards the scum of the earth. Kids are kids.

        • Asherah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Oh fuck. I heard she was 17 and that was fucking bad enough as is. Fucking hell this man is awful.

      • Christian@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah I would totally agree with this if the word wasn’t already desensitized a very long time ago. The language has changed. (I’m assuming people were ever differentiating, I don’t really know/remember the history.) Colloquially it means interested in teens unless it’s clarified to be worse than that.

        I recommend not trying to make this argument, anywhere. It will not change the way people use words, even if it could there would not be a point (attraction to pre-teens is so egregious that it will always be clarified), and a lot of people will assume that someone who doesn’t accept the colloquial usage is themselves interested in teens and in denial about how the public actually views that to the point where they think only interest in prepubescent children is problematic and handwave everything else away as a language issue.

        • MikeOToxin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Colloquially, it’s a catch-all nowadays. Like I said in another reply, we don’t need to differentiate between lowest common denominators. That gets into sounding sympathetic to these fucks, and anyone who sympathizes might as well be one themselves.

    • Aurix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      78
      ·
      3 days ago

      That is not the words you should use for a 17 year old he didn’t even know was underage.

        • Aurix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          77
          ·
          3 days ago

          Still not a pedophile nor a predator even for flirting. This is not a 12 year old, but in many jurisdictions a responsible adult.

                • Akrenion@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  13
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Have you talked to 17 year olds? They are far from developed in most cases. Anyone even in their late 20s should notice the difference in development and stay clear.

                • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Yeah that’s a fair take.

                  It is reprehensible and disgusting behavior, but it doesn’t mean we should universally apply labels across vast swaths of different issues, as it devalues said label and poisons future discussion.

                  Simple labels simplify discussion of course, but that runs the risk of losing nuance for the specific way someone was a disgusting creep.

          • Crikeste@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Not in the jurisdiction he was in, and that’s all that matters.

            Also, while sending sexually explicit texts to minors (using only words) is not illegal, I’m pretty sure we can correlate what his intent was. What, do you think he’s going to come out and fully admit he’s a pedophile? No.

            Also, nowhere in any of his statements has he clarified that he didn’t know they were underage. If it were the case that he didn’t know, that’s a pretty fucking big deal and he should know how important it is to explain that. He didn’t though.

            Stop defending pedophiles.

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    wop wop wop wop wop

    I have this feeling this is probably not the last controversy involving minors we will see shake out of his mustache this week. Justin Roiland had his empire also collapse from grooming. Guy is done.

    • BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s why drake is done too? The guy who beat the shit out of a woman and tattooed it on himself? Drake the groomer with his new album? That done?

      • shapesandstuff@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s the thing right. Nobody gets “cancelled”
        They get called out and shamed… and then carry on with business a few weeks later.

        Rammstein is filling stadiums again, drd will come back from his vacation and keep on trucking on.

        They never face consequences and yet they cry about a woke cancelculture that only exists in their heads to hype up their own bullshit

  • Alteon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    From the article, it sounds like he knew they were a minor and still leaned into the conversations. Why? Why TF would you even be curious about it?

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    Fine. I won’t pick a side. I won’t crucify anyone without evidence. So…release the transcripts. That seems like the logical step.

    • Chozo@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      The transcripts won’t be released unless they’re leaked. Giving out any details about the minor he was chatting with risks exposing the victim, who is possibly still a minor. Releasing the transcripts would be an incredibly damaging move, and not to Beahm; people would almost certainly doxx the kid immediately, possibly putting them at even greater risk of harm than they would have been in to begin with.

      We don’t need to see them, anyway. We’re not involved. We have nothing to gain from reading the details. If self-admitting to having inappropriate conversations with minors isn’t evidence enough to convince you one way or the other, then I really don’t see how reading a sext thread with a child will make much of a difference.

      • ashok36@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        It was seven years ago. Unless he was talking to a ten year old, they’re not a minor anymore.

        • rwhitisissle@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          And if they are…well, first of all, yikes, and second of all his career as a content creator is going to go from “damaged” to “gone” as no platform would let him stream after that.

    • Master@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Twitch settled with him instead of losing in arbitration for banning him. I want to see the the transcripts. It sounds like part of his settlement was that he couldn’t talk about it but ex twitter employees violated the nda. That’s a lot of work on twitches side to keep it hushed which makes this weirder.

      He’s a massive pos so it Wouldn’t surprise me if he did do something worthy of this witch hint but damnit i want to see the texts before i burn him when twitch is being so weird about it.

      • saigot@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        That’s a lot of work on twitches side to keep it hushed which makes this weirder.

        I don’t think that’s weird, twitch really doesn’t want the pr of being wrong or having a pedo on their platform, its a lose-lose and I would expect them to try and cover it up regardless.

  • celeste@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Does anyone have a link to a source on the age of the kid? I’m wondering if I’m missing it. People keep saying she’s 17. Was that in one of his edits?

  • catalyst@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    I keep thinking back to years ago when someone at work tried to tell me this guy was good and I could just tell on vibes alone to stay clear.