Social media platforms are facing scrutiny following the circulation of videos showing the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk as the companies look to add warnings to the graphic content or remove it outright.
Kirk, 31, was shot in the neck on Wednesday last week while talking to a large crowd of students during an outdoor event on the campus of Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. He was later pronounced dead at the hospital. Kirk’s accused killer, Tyler Robinson, was taken into custody late Thursday.
Videos of Kirk’s assassination spread rapidly across social media platforms following the incident, prompting concerns about exposing users – including those underage – to the disturbing and graphic content without warning within the content feeds.
Major social media platforms are taking different approaches to handling the situation based on their respective community guidelines and terms of service, but are generally taking steps to either remove the graphic content or to apply warnings or restrictions that limit its immediate visibility within the feed.
MAHER PRAISES CONSERVATIVES LIKE KIRK FOR PROMOTING DIALOGUE, CONDEMNS FAR-LEFT FOR CELEBRATING HIS DEATH
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, told FOX Business that it is marking videos of the shooting with a “sensitive” warning label as well as age-gating the content to only be available to users over the age of 18.
Reddit said it’s actively working to remove the videos as a violation of the platform’s terms of service related to violent content, as well as prohibiting its re-upload.
YouTube is taking down some of the videos that lack context for viewers, while adding warnings and age restrictions to videos that remain on the platform, according to a spokesperson. It may also remove content that violates its community guidelines, such as content mocking the death or injury of an identifiable individual.
CHARLIE KIRK’S CLOSE FRIEND REVEALS WHAT HE WOULD BE ‘PROUDEST OF’ WHILE REFLECTING ON LEGACY
A TikTok spokesperson told FOX Business that the short-form video app is implementing additional safeguards to prevent users from unexpectedly viewing footage that violates the platform’s rules.
X, formerly Twitter, only permits the sharing of graphic media if it’s properly labeled, not prominently displayed, and doesn’t show excessive gore. The company directs users to put a content warning on such posts, which viewers must acknowledge before viewing the content.
Jessica Melugin, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Technology and Innovation, told FOX Business that social media companies are faced with a moderation challenge because users can directly upload the content.
TURNING POINT USA ANNOUNCES MASSIVE PUBLIC MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR CHARLIE KIRK AT ARIZONA FOOTBALL STADIUM
“Content moderation at scale, and the scale we’re talking about is immense, with big platforms can be very difficult. It’s not going to be perfect,” she explained.
“With the gravity of this event, I think that they’re probably putting a lot of resources into pulling this stuff down, labeling it, putting the blur in, making warnings,” Melugin said. “They really don’t have any incentive to horrify people right off their platform.”
“It’s one thing to have a little click-bait, be a little sensational – but that’s not what we’re talking about here. This is like watching someone be murdered in real time, I hope and pray the vast majority of America doesn’t have much of an appetite for that,” she added.
Melugin noted that Charlie Kirk had a lot of success professionally, in part because he was so effective at employing social media, adding that it “can be a force for good for people and also bad things can happen on it too.”
Melugin also contrasted social media platforms’ efforts to moderate the content with a government call for removing certain content.
“Where we start to worry is when the government starts calling for the forced removal of things. That’s a very different thing than the platforms saying ‘we want to keep our users happy and we want to curate this so it’s a safe place for people to be,’ rather than the government saying ‘hey American citizens, you’re not allowed to see this,'” she said. “Those are two very, very different things I think legally and with the spirit of free speech.”
Read the full article here
