Shortly after conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot while hosting an event at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, videos began appearing online, including several showing the moment he was shot in the neck and others depicting his limp and bloody body being hauled by his security team into a vehicle. By the time Kirk was pronounced dead and a suspect apprehended on Friday, dozens of videos had surfaced online, with millions of views, showing the shooting. Even though traditional news outlets tried to limit the graphic content they aired, social media overwhelmed any attempt by newsrooms to gatekeep it. The shooting also prompted Utah Gov. Spencer Cox to say Friday: “Social media is a cancer on our society right now, and I would encourage people to log off.” “Once the genie’s out of the bottle, it’s very, very difficult to stop it,” said Fuyuki Kurasawa, director of the Global Digital Citizenship Lab at York University in Toronto, in an interview with CTV News over Zoom. “The more people see the video and discuss it, the more others will want to see it as well — to be part of the conversation and to share it themselves,” Kurasawa said. “We also know there’s influence, credibility and status gained by spreading a video like that — not only because it shows they’re connected, but also because it allows them to participate in the conversation and demonstrate that they are, in some ways, influential.” Kurasawa added that social media platforms benefit from graphic videos being shared online because they include content not available on traditional media. “They’re designed to maximize user engagement,” he said. “And if they see users are increasingly migrating toward platforms with less curation and looser rules, where graphic content is widely available, those platforms will likely loosen their own guidelines or tolerate these videos, even if they technically violate their terms of service.” ‘Long-term consequences’ of viewing graphic content Viewing graphic content like this can have ‘pretty significant’ immediate and long-term consequences, according to psychologist Dr. Shimi Kang, who spoke to CTV News from Calgary on Saturday. “Brain studies show that violent images trigger the brainstem, specifically an area called the amygdala, which puts us into a freeze, fight, or flight state of mind,” Kang said, explaining that ‘fight’ manifests as anger and irritability, ‘flight’ is a form of distraction that leads to behaviours like going down rabbit holes or checking your phone more, and ‘freeze’ is a state of anxiety.” “So, you might get obsessive thoughts or just feel overwhelmed,” Kang said. “That’s the initial aspect. If it’s happening repeatedly, then especially in young people, the brain can wire and fire into that pathway, and contribute to things like anxiety and overwhelm.” She added that studies show repeated exposure to graphic videos is also linked to desensitization. “We know in general, social media is linked to decreases in empathy (and) social skills. There’s anonymity there. We’ve seen a lot of hate, things people say that they wouldn’t say in person. So, there is a link (between) social media itself (and) the violent images.” ‘Unplugged Canada’ Some parents across the country are trying to start a movement, through a not-for-profit called ‘Unplugged Canada’ to not allow kids access to smart phones until they’re at least 14 years old. “Our kids are not developmentally ready for this,” said Toronto mom, Kate Daley who is a part of the organization. “I don’t want them to have access to all the things that they can have on their phone, and (content driven by) algorithms. (We want parents) all aligned, and sign a pledge to just be on the same page about not giving their kids a phone.” “Unplugged Canada empowers parents to say, look, if we have the strength in numbers, if we all agree not to get our kids a smartphone until at least age 14 … we can change this culture around when kids get these devices,” added Rebecca Snow, another mother from Toronto. But Kurasawa believes if kids want to access these videos, it’s tough to stop them without the social media giants being on board. “I think when it comes to social media platforms and their curation or policies around this, it’s really a game of whack-a-mole because they may try, either algorithmically or through human curation to somehow limit the spread of these videos or to partially blur them or censor them,” he said. “But there will always be users who will get around these limitations, whether they be algorithmic or human.”
