Another TikTok video Degeling shared with WIRED showed a slow-motion, close-up angle of the bullet hitting Kirk’s neck. The tone of the video was conspiratorial: The user who uploaded it added spooky music and a digitally narrated voice, asking, “What is the black thing on his shirt and why did it move like this before he got shot?” As of Thursday morning, the video was still online. It had been up for 8 hours, and had more than 900 comments (with many saying the “black thing” was a microphone).
As of Thursday morning, on Instagram, a search for “Charlie Kirk shot” surfaced a close-up video of the incident as the first result. The video autoplays as a thumbnail, without warning. At the time of writing, the video had 15.3 million views.
Not only are the Kirk shooting videos spreading rapidly, but some are in clear violation of the platforms’ social media policies. For example, TikTok’s terms of use state that the company does not allow “gory, gruesome, disturbing, or extremely violent content.”
On other platforms, the Kirk video falls into a gray area. Meta’s overarching policy is to age-restrict certain content, require warning labels, and remove some graphic depictions of violence.
A spokesperson for Meta said that per the company’s Violent and Graphic Content policies, it’s applying a “Mark as Sensitive” warning label to footage of the Kirk shooting, and are age-gating it to users 18 and older. The spokesperson also said that the company has 15,000 people reviewing content for Meta—though it did not say whether these are employees or contractors—and that it does not allow videos that glorify, represent, support the incident or perpetrator.
Meta also states in its online Transparency Center that it does not allow content of “terrorist attacks, hate events, multiple-victim violence or attempted multiple-victim violence, serial murders, or hate crimes perpetrator-generated content relating to such attacks; or third-party imagery depicting the moment of such attacks on visible victims.” Still, the widely-circulated footage of Kirk being shot, for now, is allowable. It will get a warning label and be age-gated, but not removed from Meta platforms unless determined to be in clear violation of the “glorified content” policy.
X tells users that they “may share graphic media if it is properly labeled, not prominently displayed and is not excessively gory or depicting sexual violence.” The platform notes that content that is “explicitly threatening, inciting, glorifying, or expressing desire for violence” is not allowed.
Mahadevan, from the Poynter Institute, says that he saw the Kirk shooting video without his consent multiple times on X on Wednesday, likening it to a version of “4Chan turned into a mainstream social media platform.” (He also says he opened up Facebook on Thursday morning and immediately saw a video of Kirk being shot.)
X did not reply to requests for comment or questions about whether the Kirk video was considered “excessively gory” by X’s standards.
But X appears to have another content moderation problem: A few hours after Kirk was pronounced dead, the AI chatbot Grok, which runs on X, insisted that Kirk was “fine and active as ever.” X did not reply to further questions from WIRED about Grok’s misinformation around the Kirk shooting.
TikTok did not respond to WIRED’s request for comment. Bluesky has said it’s suspending accounts that encourage violence, and taking down close-up videos of the event.
For now, the videos of Charlie Kirk’s shooting continue to spread online.
“This is all psychologically damaging to our society in ways we don’t understand yet,” Mahadevan said. “We’re seeing posts on X of people saying, ‘Congratulations, you’ve radicalized me.’ And part of that is because they’re seeing the video of Kirk being killed. They’re not just reading about it. They’re actually seeing it.”
Additional reporting by Kylie Robison.
Disclaimer: This news has been automatically collected from the source link above. Our website does not create, edit, or publish the content. All information, statements, and opinions expressed belong solely to the original publisher. We are not responsible or liable for the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of any news, nor for any statements, views, or claims made in the content. All rights remain with the respective source.