Social media’s algorithms dominate the aftermath of Charlie Kirk killing, reigniting debates over platform power

Social media quickly became the primary venue for public reaction after conservative commentator Charlie Kirk was fatally shot Sept. 10 in Utah, highlighting how algorithms, platform decisions and online behavior shape modern political life.

Chilling videos of the shooting spread rapidly across X, TikTok and YouTube, overwhelming moderation systems and prompting platforms to work to remove graphic material. Investigators are probing the time the man accused of killing Kirk, identified by authorities as Tyler Robinson, spent in “dark corners of the internet” in the days leading up to the shooting, according to law enforcement sources and news reports. The spread of the footage and the fierce online debate that followed illustrate how algorithmically driven feeds can amplify confrontational content and harden public reactions.

Utah Republican Gov. Spencer Cox called social media a “cancer” on NBC’s Meet the Press, saying the largest technology companies had learned to “hack our brains, get us addicted to outrage … and get us to hate each other.” Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii urged users to step away from feed-driven anger and suggested alternatives such as reading a book or walking a dog. Researchers and former platform critics say those observations fit a broader pattern in which platforms prioritize content that retains attention.

"Our country is being digitally mediated," said Laura Edelson, a professor at Northeastern University who studies social media algorithms. "Where we interact with other people, how we interact with broader society, that is more and more happening over feed algorithms." Edelson said divisive content and the proliferation of violent video can be the direct result of design choices intended to maximize engagement while reducing moderation costs.

Platform owners and public figures have offered mixed responses. X owner Elon Musk said on the site that while discourse can turn negative, it is still valuable that discussions occur. Former President Donald Trump, who created his own social platform, told reporters that social media could create "deep, dark holes that are cancerous" while also acknowledging positive aspects. Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro described social media as "a disaster area" for how it shapes public debate, while cautioning against broad calls for censorship.

The aftermath of the killing also exposed a form of online policing by Kirk’s supporters and by political opponents. Conservative accounts and commentators have scoured social channels for posts they view as insufficiently respectful, sometimes pressing employers or institutions to take action. The Libs of TikTok account urged the defunding of a Washington state school district after officials declined to lower flags, and Rep. Randy Fine of Florida asked followers to identify public employees who posted negatively about Kirk. Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah said she was fired after a series of posts on the social platform Bluesky in which she expressed limited sympathy; she denied endorsing violence.

Such actions underscore how social platforms can be used to enforce social norms and punish perceived transgressions, researchers say, intensifying partisan pressures and professional risk for those who post controversial views. The dynamic also plays into longer-running concerns about misinformation and eroded trust in institutions, including elections, which critics say has been amplified by online ecosystems that reward sensationalism.

International events have added urgency to the debate over online influence and government intervention. In Nepal, a government attempt to block social platforms coincided with protests that turned deadly, with authorities opening fire on demonstrators and killing at least 19 people, according to news reports. The episode highlighted risks tied both to unregulated flows of information and to heavy-handed state controls aimed at limiting dissent.

Analysts say changing platform behavior is difficult because the advertising model that funds most social media rewards keeping users on-site as long as possible. "Unless advertisers flee for fear of being associated with violent posts, there's little incentive for them to change," said Jasmine Enberg, a social media analyst at Emarketer. Young people are increasingly conscious of the harms of excessive social media use, she added, but turning off phones is a limited solution for a society whose civic conversation is now largely mediated online.

Company decisions to reduce content moderation staff and rely on automated systems have also intersected with those incentives, research and reporting show. Automated systems can be effective at removing clear policy violations but often struggle with context, nuance and rapidly spreading video. That has left platforms racing to catch up in high-profile incidents, including the Kirk shooting, where raw footage circulated before effective removal.

Lawmakers, advocacy groups and academics have proposed a range of remedies, from new regulation of algorithms and transparency requirements to increased funding for human moderation and advertising pressure. But whether meaningful change is feasible remains an open question, given entrenched business models, evolving technology and competing claims about free expression.

Observers note that the current moment is another chapter in a long history of media reshaping public life. Television, radio and print each transformed political debate in earlier eras; today, feed algorithms and viral video are the dominant force. "This is the most recent in a long line of ways that society has been changed by media technology," Edelson said.

The killing and its online ripple effects have prompted calls for both individual restraint and systemic reform, yet policymakers and companies face practical constraints. Investigations into the shooter’s online activity continue, platforms continue to adjust moderation responses, and public debate over the role of social media in politics and violence is likely to persist as lawmakers, advertisers and users weigh competing demands for safety, free expression and commercial viability.