Why Charlie Kirk’s Assassination Video Spread on Social Media

>> JUST MOMENTS AFTER CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL ACTIVIST CHARLIE KIRK WAS SHOT, VIDEOS OF HIS ASSASSINATION REACHED MILLIONS ON THE GLOBE.

THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THE VIOLENT SPREAD OF CONTENT.

WE DISCUSSED THE PHENOMENON AND FAILURE OF COMPANIES TO REGULATE THE ISSUE.

THIS CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE BEFORE PRESIDENT TRUMP FILED A DEFAMATION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE NEW YORK TIMES.

>> SHEERA FRENKEL, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

MOMENTS FROM THE ASSASSINATION OF CHARLIE KIRK WE SAW VIDEO GAIN SO MANY VIEWS ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS.

I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHY.

>> WE SEE THIS ALMOST EVERY TIME THERE'S A VIOLENT INCIDENT CAUGHT ON CAMERA.

PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AND THERE'S A KIND OF ORBIT FASCINATION TO SEE IT FOR THEMSELVES.

IF THERE WAS A MOMENT OF VIOLENCE THAT HAPPENED IN PUBLIC YOU CAN BE SURE THAT SOMEBODY WAS RECORDING.

THOSE VIDEOS SEEM TO TAKE LESS AND LESS TIME TO FIND THEIR WAY TO SOCIAL MEDIA.

>> PEOPLE OPEN UP THEIR PHONE AND CLICKED ON AN APP AND THERE WAS NOT EVEN A CHOICE.

IT WAS JUST THERE AUTOMATICALLY PLAYING.

>> WHAT WAS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID WAS THE WORD CHOICE.

PEOPLE HAD TO CHOOSE TO WATCH THIS SORT OF CONTENT EVEN 1520 YEARS AGO.

YOU HAD TO NAVIGATE TO IT.

YOU HAD TO MAKE A DECISION AND CLICK YOUR WAY THROUGH TO THAT EVEN IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE INTERNET.

THESE DAYS YOU OPEN OF SOCIAL MEDIA AT AND IT COULD BE INSTAGRAM TO SEE WHAT YOUR FRIENDS ARE DOING OR TO CHECK A NEWS BULLETIN.

THESE VIDEOS AUTOPLAY.

ALMOST ALL THE SOCIAL MEDIA SITES HAVE PUT IN A FUNCTION WHERE AUTOMATICALLY VIDEOS WILL PLAY.

THEY DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS GOOD FOR ENGAGEMENT.

IT'S GOOD FOR THEIR NUMBERS TO HAVE A VIDEO SHOWING IN YOUR FEED.

UNFORTUNATELY IN THIS CASE IT WAS AN INCREDIBLY GRUESOME AND BLOODY FEEL OF A MAN'S DEATH OF THE MOMENT A PERSON WAS KILLED.

PEOPLE DID NOT GET THAT CHOICE TO SAY I WANT TO WATCH THIS OR I DON'T WANT TO WALK.

IN MY CASE I DID NOT KNOW WHAT I WAS FIRST WATCHING WHEN THE VIDEO, YOU SAW CHARLIE KIRK IN ONE MOMENT AND YOU SAW HIS DEATH.

>> YOU HAVE COVERED THIS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

PUT IT IN CONTEXT FOR US.

HOW HAS THIS EVOLVED OVER THE YEARS?

THIS IS NOT THE FIRST AND PROBABLY WON'T BE THE LAST.

>> I HAVE COVERED THIS GOING ON A DECADE.

IN THE VERY EARLY DAYS OF VIOLENT VIDEOS MAKING THEIR WAY TO SOCIAL MEDIA, MY OF THAT WAS ISIS.

THE EXTREMIST GROUP WAS POSTING VERY GRAPHIC FOOTAGE ON WHAT WAS THEN CALLED TWITTER OF BEHEADINGS, SHOOTINGS, PEOPLE BEING THROWN OFF BUILDINGS PICK A NUMBER OF COMPANIES GOT TOGETHER AND SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THIS.

WE WILL PUT AN END TO IT.

WE WILL STOP VIOLENT CONTENT FROM SPREADING BECAUSE WE DO NOT THINK IT IS GOOD OR HEALTHY FOR SOCIETY.

YOU HEARD THEM EARNESTLY SAY THEY WOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS TYPE OF CONTENT.

IN THE 10 YEARS SINCE THEN I'VE WRITTEN EIGHT STORIES ABOUT THE WAY VIOLENT FOOTAGE HAVE SPREAD ONLINE AFTER AN EVENT WHETHER AN ASSASSINATION, SCHOOL SHOOTING, EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY SAY THEY ARE TAKING ACTION.

WE HEAR A LOT OF PROMISES AND YET THESE VIDEOS CONTINUE TO CIRCULATE.

>> IF THEY HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS AND MADE PUBLIC PLEDGES TO DO BETTER, IS THERE A WAY TO MEASURE WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE?

MOST OF US SEE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT WHATEVER TOOL THEY BUILT DID NOT WORK WELL ENOUGH.

>> IN THE CASES OF SOME PLATFORMS.

I'M THINKING ABOUT META, WE HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF LABELS PUT ON THESE VIDEOS.

THERE IS A WARNING FOR PEOPLE SAYING THIS IS VIOLENT CONTENT.

AGE RESTRICTION HAS BEEN PUT OF PLACE ASKING THAT PEOPLE ARE OVER THE AGE OF 18.

WE ARE SEEING SOME INCREMENTAL STEPS FROM SOME COMPANIES.

I WOULD NOTE THAT X WHICH USED TO BE CALLED TWITTER HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT APPROACH.

THEY ARE NOT LABELING THE CONTENT.

THE OWNER ELON MUSK HAS BEEN SHARING A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THIS MOMENT.

THOSE VIDEOS ARE VERY WIDELY AVAILABLE WHERE THEY AUTOPLAY AND HAVE BEEN VIEWED TENS OF MILLIONS OF TIMES.

I THINK PEOPLE WHO STUDY THE INTERNET LOOK AT THAT AND SAY IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR SOME OF THE PLATFORMS TO BE DOING SOMETHING.

AS LONG AS IT LIVES ON ONE PLATFORM IT'S ACCESSED ALL OVER THE WORLD IT WILL MAKE ITS WAY EVERYWHERE.

PEOPLE WILL SHARE IT AND WATCH IT.

>> HOW MUCH OF THIS, I GUESS THIS SPECIFIC VIDEO AND ITS REACH HAVE TO DO WITH THE POLITICS OF THE DAY, WHETHER OR NOT PLATFORMS WANT TO BE SEEN AS CENSORING CONTENT.

HOW MUCH OF IT HAS TO DO WITH WHO CHARLIE KIRK WAS SPECIFICALLY?

>> IT IS CLEAR WE ARE IN A DEEPLY POLARIZED MOMENT WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO POINT TO THIS TRAGEDY AND SAY SOMEBODY WAS ASSASSINATED.

THEY WILL SAY SOMEBODY WAS ASSASSINATED THAT PROVES WHAT HE HAD TO SAY OR DISPROVES WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.

EVERYBODY IS LOOKING AT THE EVENT AND DRAWING A CONCLUSION.

I THINK I LOOK AT PSYCHOLOGISTS, ESPECIALLY CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST WHO SPEAK ABOUT WHAT WATCHING VIOLENT FOOTAGE DOES TO OUR BRAINS ESPECIALLY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE.

FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT OPTING TO WATCH THIS.

THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THEY DO NOT THINK IT IS GOOD FOR US TO BE WATCHING VIOLENT CONTENT.

THEN THERE'S THE PEOPLE ARGUING THAT THIS FURTHERS AN AGENDA ON THE RIGHT OR LEFT.

THOUGH PSYCHOLOGIST SAY THERE SHOULD BE DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

POLITICAL ASSASSINATIONS ARE SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE THINKING SERIOUSLY ABOUT BUT WATCHING A MOMENT OF VIOLENCE IS NOT GOING TO ADVANCE ANYONE'S AGENDA.

>> HAVE ANY OF THESE PLATFORMS CHOSEN TO REMOVE THE VIDEO OUT RIGHT?

>> SOME OF THE PLATFORMS, META AND YOUTUBE HAVE REMOVED VERSIONS OF THE VIDEO, LABELED VERSIONS OF THE VIDEO.

THE ONES THAT I SAW WERE MANIPULATED TO MAKE IT EVEN MORE GRUESOME.

I THINK I ONLY SAW A HANDFUL THAT WERE ACTUALLY REMOVED.

>> I ALSO WONDER TECHNOLOGICALLY HOW FEASIBLE THAT IS.

IF IT'S A DIGITAL ARTIFACT PRETTY EASY TO COPY, PASTE, UPLOAD AGAIN.

I'M SURE THEY HAVE UNDERSTANDS ON HOW OFTEN OR HOW MANY VARIATIONS ARE BEING UPLOADED.

>> INEVITABLY WHEN ONE OF THESE MOMENTS HAPPEN WE HEAR HOW QUICKLY PEOPLE UPLOADED THOSE VIDEOS AND HOW MANY MILLIONS OF TIMES THEY WERE MANIPULATED OR SHARED TO MAKE THEM SPREAD FURTHER ONLINE.

I THINK WHEN PEOPLE DECIDE TO SHARE CONTENT IT IS VERY HARD FOR THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO TAKE THEM DOWN IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

>> IS THERE A THROUGH LINE INTO WHY PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SHARE SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

WHAT ARE THE RATIONALES, WHAT ARE THE REASONS?

WHY DO PEOPLE THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO EXIST IN THE DIGITAL SPACE OR AN ARCHIVED MOMENT?

>> I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE WHO POST THIS ONLINE SAY THEY ARE SHARING IT BECAUSE THEY THINK IT PROVES THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA.

PEOPLE BOTH ON THE RIGHT AND LEFT MAKE THAT CLAIM.

I'VE SEEN PEOPLE ON THE LEFT SAY IT SHOWS THAT THE PERSON WHO DECIDED TO KILL HIM WAS A CONSERVATIVE PERSON, GUN OWNER SO IT PROVED ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS.

I'VE SEEN PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT BECAUSE THEY SEE HIM AS A MARTYR AND THEY WANT HIS MOMENT OF DEATH TO SERVE AS A POLITICAL WARNING.

PEOPLE CAN JUSTIFY THE SHARING OF VIOLENT VIDEOS AND LOTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS IF THEY THINK IT FURTHERS THEIR CAUSE.

>> WE RECENTLY HAD THE UTAH GOVERNOR SPENCER COX SAY THAT SOCIAL MEDIA IS A CANCER ON OUR SOCIETY.

I WONDER AS PEOPLE LOOK AT THESE PLATFORMS TO TRY TO TAKE MORE STEPS TO PREVENT THIS PROLIFERATION, IS THERE ANY KIND OF COLLECTIVE SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY THEY HAVE?

IT ULTIMATELY ADDS TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE.

THEY PROFIT FROM THESE IMAGES AND VIDEOS.

IT INCREASES THEIR ENGAGEMENT, TIME ON SITE, METRICS THAT THEY LOOK FOR TO SEE IF I SHOULD INVEST IN PUTTING ADS IN A PLATFORM.

>> I THINK THAT DEPENDS ON HOW CYNICALLY YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE WORDS AND THE SPEECHES THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE EXECUTIVES AT THESE COMPANIES LIKE GOOGLE AND META AND TIKTOK.

FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO WE SAW THEM JOINING GLOBAL FORUMS TO STOP THIS FROM BEING SPREAD.

WITH HEARD MARK ZUCKERBERG TALK ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE BEING HIRED AT META TO STOP THE PROBLEM.

BENNETT EXISTS.

YOU HAVE TO WONDER IF IT IS AS IMPORTANT AS A I OR SUPER INTELLIGENCE?

ARE THEY DEDICATING NEAR THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES THEY SPENT DEDICATED TO DATA CENTERS.

YOU CAN COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT'S NOT.

THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S BEEN SPENT ON OTHER PROJECTS DOES NOT COME CLOSE.

SO HAVE THEY DONE SOMETHING?

YES.

THEY HAVE APPLIED LABELS AND PUT AGE RESTRICTIONS.

THEY HAVE DONE SOME WORK TOWARDS LABELING THESE VIDEOS, BUT YOU CANNOT LOOK AT THIS AND SAY IT IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN SOLVED.

>> THEY HAVE DECREASED THE NUMBER OF HUMAN BEINGS INVOLVED IN THE TRUST AND SAFETY DEPARTMENTS.

MAYBE FOR DIFFERENT MOTIVATIONS, BUT COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY ARE SPENDING ON A. I. CHIPS AND DATA CENTERS, SCALING BACK ON THE ABILITY FOR HUMANS TO BE SMART ABOUT THIS AND HELP IN THE PROCESS OF TAKING THESE VIDEOS DOWN SEEMS DIRECTLY OPPOSITIONAL TO WHAT THEY SAY IN FRONT OF CONGRESS.

>> EXACTLY.

I THINK ALL THE TECH COMPANIES HAVE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WORK ON TRUST AND SAFETY AND SOME LIKE X HAVE GOTTEN RID OF THEM ENTIRELY.

YOU SEE WHERE THEY ARE DEVELOPING THE NUMBER MONEY.

THE TRUST AND SAFETY PEOPLE WERE TYPICALLY AT THE FOREFRONT IN THIS IS GOOD FOR THE PLATFORM, BUT FOR ENGAGEMENT.

THIS IS BAD FOR IT.

THEY WERE SOME OF THE MOST OUTSPOKEN OPPONENTS TO SOME OF THESE POLICIES PUT IN PLACE BY EXECUTIVES THAT THEY THOUGHT WOULD INCREASE ENGAGEMENT, BUT PERHAPS AFFECT THE OVERALL HEALTH OF THE PLATFORM.

>> IN THOSE HOURS RIGHT AFTER WHEN WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS SO MUCH CONSPIRACY THEORY, IN THIS CASE HELP THE AUDIENCE UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO WERE THOUGHT TO BE THE SUSPECTED SHOOTER EVEN WELL BEFORE THE SHOOTER WAS IDENTIFIED.

>> THERE IS ALWAYS A BIT OF AN INTERNET MANHUNT THAT HAPPENS AFTER THESE MOMENTS WHERE PEOPLE GET TOGETHER AND DECIDE THAT THEY WILL BE THE ONES THAT FIND THE SHOOTER.

THEY WILL BE THE ONES THAT FIGURE OUT SOMETIMES THEY LOOK AT PHOTOS AND SAY WILL THAT PERSON LOOKS LIKE A POPULAR YOUTUBE OR WE DON'T LIKE AND YOU SEE THEM SORT OF GATHER AROUND.

YOU SEE QUITE A BIT OF A WITCH HUNT HAPPENING IN THOSE MOMENTS WHERE INDIVIDUALS ARE TARGETED AND BLAMED.

IN THE HOURS AFTER THE KIRK SHOOTING I SAW SIX OR SEVEN DIFFERENT PEOPLE BEING NAMED AS SUSPECTS AND SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE HAD THEIR PLACES OF WORK CALLED.

THEY HAD THEIR HOMES CALLED.

THEY HAD THEIR INTERNET PROFILES MADE PUBLIC AS ACCUSATIONS FLEW THAT IT WAS THEM.

I WOULD NOTE THAT IN ALL THE WORDS I YEARS I'VE BEEN COVERING THIS AS A REPORTER I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN INTERNET MOB CORRECTLY IDENTIFY A PERSON BEFORE THE POLICE WERE ABLE TO DO SO.

>> SINCE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE GETTING SOME OF THEIR NEWS FROM SOCIAL MEDIA, HOW DO SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS SEE THEIR ROLE KIND OF GOING FORWARD?

>> IF YOU LOOK AT SOMEONE LIKE ELON MUSK, HE THINKS IT IS A POSITIVE THAT PEOPLE ARE SHARING INFORMATION AS THEY WANT.

HE CONSIDERS IT FREE SPEECH IS THE WAY HE FRAMES IT IN DISCUSSES IT SAYING JOURNALISTS ARE ARBITRATORS OF TRUTH AND HE THINKS IT IS GOOD THAT PEOPLE SHARE WITH ONE ANOTHER AND THAT THERE IS WHAT HE CALLS A FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION.

THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE LIKE MARK ZUCKERBERG THE FOUNDER OF FACEBOOK WHO SAYS WE ARE NOT REALLY A NEWS SITE.

IT'S NOT REALLY OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE MAKING THOSE KINDS OF DECISIONS.

I THINK IN GENERAL YOU SEE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVES OF THESE COMPANIES VEERING AWAY FROM TAKING THE SORT OF RESPONSIBILITY THAT EDITORS AND JOURNALISTS WOULD HAVE TAKEN AND WOULD HAVE TALKED ABOUT TAKING.

MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT TO SHOW, WHAT NOT TO SHOW.

HOW TO DISCUSS AN ACTIVE MANHUNT, HOW TO DISCUSS A SITUATION IN WHICH A POLITICAL FIGURE HAS BEEN ASSASSINATED.

THERE'S A LOT OF THOUGHT THAT GOES INTO NEWS COVERING THIS THAT HAS NOT BEEN GOING ON ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

>> WHEN YOU ASK THESE DIFFERENT SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES, YOU SEEM TO HAVE A FEW BILLION TO SPARE, WHY AREN'T YOU INVESTING IN THIS, WHAT IS THEIR RESPONSE?

>> DEPENDING ON THE COMPANY THEY WILL TALK ABOUT INVESTMENTS THAT THEY HAVE MADE.

A LOT OF THEM ARE TALKING ABOUT A. I. SYSTEMS THEY PUT IN PLACE TO TRY TO TAKE DOWN THESE VIDEOS QUICKLY.

WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE FACT THAT THE VIDEOS ARE CONTINUING TO PROLIFERATE AND ARE NOT TAKEN DOWN IN AN EFFECTIVE WAY THEY WILL SAY THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THEY ARE WORKING ON.

I THINK IT IS A VERY SILICON VALLEY SPEAK OF THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT WE ARE FIXING.

THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WORK AT THESE COMPANIES THAT I HAVE SPOKEN TO FOR GOING ON ALMOST 10 YEARS WHO STILL TALK ABOUT HOW THERE ARE PRODUCTS BEING CREATED OR A. I. FILTERS THAT WILL SOLVE THIS.

>> IN SOME WAY, I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER TO HOLD THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS RESPONSIBLE, HOW MUCH IS A REFLECTION OF LARGER CULTURAL ISSUES ON WHAT MAKES HUMAN BEINGS WANT TO WATCH THESE VIDEOS.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE INTERNET THESE DAYS.

IS IT A REFLECTION OF US OR ARE WE A REFLECTION OF IT?

>> I THINK WE ARE LIVING IN A MOMENT IN TIME WHERE THERE'S BEEN A BIT OF A PENDULUM THAT SWUNG.

I THINK YEARS AGO WE WERE --AT LEAST FOR ME I WAS LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE ISIS AND THE CHRISTCHURCH SHOOTING IN NEW ZEALAND AND WE HAVE THIS MOMENT WHERE INTERNET COMPANIES CAME TOGETHER AND SAID THAT WE NEED TO FIX THIS.

WE WILL TAKE DOWN STUFF, REMOVE THE VIOLENT CONTENT.

IN THE YEARS SINCE THE PENDULUM SWUNG AND A LOT ARE SAYING WE TOOK DOWN TOO MUCH.

WE TRY TO CONTROL TOO MUCH.

WE WILL DO LESS.

WE WANT TO LET THE INTERNET MORE OF A REFLECTION OF WHAT PEOPLE WANT.

AS WITH EVERYTHING, I THINK HOPEFULLY IT WILL SETTLE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE WHERE THERE IS A MOVE TOWARDS CREATING MORE SAFEGUARDS AND PERHAPS ESPECIALLY AROUND VIOLENT CONTENT FIGURING OUT A WAY TO SAY PEOPLE SHOULD MAKE THE DECISIONS IF THEY WANT TO SEE VIOLENT CONTENT THERE WILL PROBABLY ALWAYS BE A PLACE FOR IT BUT IT SHOULD NOT JUST FEED AUTOMATICALLY WHEN YOU OPEN A SOCIAL MEDIA PAGE.

WE DO WANT FREE SPEECH.

FREE SPEECH IS IMPORTANT AND WE WILL STILL HOLD THAT AS A VALUE.

>> SHEERA FRENKEL FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, THANK YOU SO MUCH >> THANK YOU SO MUCH >> FOR HAVING ME.