Charlie Kirk’s mastery of social media was central to his rise as a conservative political influencer. So, it’s no surprise that both his death and its aftermath have unfolded dramatically on those same platforms.
In a reflection of today’s reality, social media has become the main space where Americans have processed last week’s killing in Utah — and it is the primary tool his supporters are using to call out those they feel have not shown the proper respect. Investigators are now examining the time the alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, spent in the “dark corners of the internet” — anti-social media spaces — before he allegedly pulled the trigger.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, as Americans focused on Kirk’s story, Nepal was rocked by violence after its government attempted to ban social media platforms.
This moment has forced a closer examination of how these technologies control what we see through algorithms, how much time we spend on them, and how they shape our understanding of the world.
Cox Emerges as a Fierce Critic of Social Media
Utah Governor Spencer Cox, a Republican, believes even the word “cancer” isn’t strong enough to describe social media. “The most powerful companies in history have figured out how to hack our brains, addict us to outrage … and get us to hate each other,” Cox said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press.
Democratic Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii urged Americans through social media to step back: “Pull yourself together, read a book, exercise, have a whiskey, walk the dog, make pasta, go fishing — just do anything other than let this algorithm pickle your brain and ruin your soul.”
Chilling videos of Kirk’s Sept. 10 assassination quickly flooded platforms like X, TikTok, and YouTube, and tech companies are still struggling to contain their spread. According to experts, confrontational content and conspiracy theories dominate feeds because they keep users hooked — the very design of the platforms.
Laura Edelson, a Northeastern University professor and expert on algorithms, noted: “Our country is being digitally mediated. Where we interact, how we interact — it is increasingly dictated by feed algorithms. This is just the latest example of how media technology is reshaping society.”
She emphasized that the proliferation of divisive content wasn’t deliberate malice but the direct consequence of profit-driven choices and reduced content moderation. “It’s not that executives are twirling their mustaches, celebrating division — except maybe in Russian and increasingly Chinese troll farms,” she added.
Divided Reactions Across the Spectrum
X owner Elon Musk acknowledged the negativity but said “it’s still good there is discussion.” President Donald Trump, when asked about Cox’s remarks, conceded that while social media can create “deep, dark holes that are cancerous,” it’s not all bad. “In some respects, it is great,” he told reporters.
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, a close friend of Kirk, admired his willingness to engage people who disagreed with him, calling social media “a disaster area” but warning against censorship.
Both left and right have used Kirk’s death to highlight grievances. Liberal group MeidasTouch showcased inflammatory conservative posts, while conservatives have hunted for negative comments about Kirk, sometimes pushing for people to lose their jobs. GOP Rep. Randy Fine of Florida even encouraged people to expose government workers who posted such remarks: “These monsters want a fight? Congratulations, they got one.”
The firing of Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah after she expressed little sympathy for Kirk underscored how polarized reactions have become. She defended herself, writing: “Not performing over-the-top grief for white men who espouse violence is not the same as endorsing violence against them.”
A Larger Battle Over Technology
Democratic lawmaker James Talarico of Texas, who is running for U.S. Senate, summed it up: “So much of what we use to discuss politics — from algorithms to cable TV — is designed to pull us apart. We’ve got to find our way back to each other if the American experiment is to continue.”
The persistence of election lies online remains one of the clearest examples of how misinformation spreads, eroding trust in institutions and fueling rage that exploded on Jan. 6, 2021.
Nepal’s unrest highlighted another danger: government overreach. When platforms were banned, protests erupted and police opened fire, killing 19 people.
Persuading tech giants to change algorithms seems unlikely, analysts say. Their business model depends on keeping people glued to screens. Unless advertisers fear brand damage from violent content, little will change.
Young people, in particular, are becoming aware of the risks of overuse, but whether they can truly step away is another matter. As analyst Jasmine Enberg put it: “There’s a limit to how much they can limit their behavior.”
0 Comments