Incident of Charlie Kirk’s Shooting: Social Media Platforms’ Content Moderation Shortcomings

Minutes following the shooting of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University yesterday, disturbing videos of the incident began to circulate across popular applications such as TikTok, Instagram, and X. In the immediate aftermath, the majority of these videos, as observed by WIRED, lacked content warnings. Many of them started autoplaying before viewers had the opportunity to provide consent. Moreover, on X, an AI – generated recap of the incident inaccurately indicated that Kirk had survived the shooting.

Social Media Platforms’ Enforcement of Content Moderation Rules

Researchers monitoring the spread of the shooting videos on social media assert that major social platforms are failing to effectively enforce their own content moderation regulations, particularly at a time when political tensions and violence are on the rise. The video of Kirk’s fatal shooting seems to have fallen into a policy loophole, straddling the line between allowable “graphic content” and the category of “glorified violence” that contravenes platform rules.

Alex Mahadevan, the director of MediaWise at the Poynter Institute, remarks, “It is astonishing that some of these videos remain online. Given the rapid spread of such content, it is virtually impossible to remove or add warnings to all these disturbing videos without a comprehensive trust and safety program.”

Over the past two years, social platforms including X, TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram have scaled back their content moderation efforts. In some instances, they have eliminated the role of human moderators, who previously served as a crucial line of defense to shield users from harmful content. Many platforms now rely on AI tools to identify and label potentially damaging video content, yet the companies often do not disclose the specific details of how these tools are implemented.

Circulation of the Shooting Videos

The videos of Kirk’s shooting depict him sitting on a stool, answering questions from students and other attendees. The moments before, during, and after the fatal incident were captured on smartphones and rapidly shared on social media. Many of these videos show Kirk suddenly recoiling after being shot, with blood gushing from the left side of his neck.

WIRED examined these videos across multiple platforms, namely TikTok, Instagram, X, Facebook, Threads, and Bluesky. Some videos appeared organically in users’ feeds or upon initially opening the apps. Others were easily accessible by searching for keywords like “Charlie Kirk” and “Charlie Kirk shot.” On X, some users recommended turning off autoplay to avoid inadvertently viewing the shooting videos.

Martin Degeling, a researcher who audits algorithmic systems and collaborates with organizations such as the non – profit AI Forensics, states, “I do not believe it is feasible to prevent the initial dissemination of such content. However, platforms could do better in preventing its massive spread through algorithmic feeds, especially to users who did not specifically search for it.”

Degeling tracked the overnight spread of the Kirk shooting videos. He noted that one particular clip had amassed over 17 million views on TikTok. According to a screenshot reviewed by WIRED, the video in question was seemingly recorded from just a few rows behind where Kirk was seated on stage. It included hashtags such as #charliekirk #rip #charliekirkdied #charliekirkincident #ripcharlie. This video has since been removed.

Another TikTok video shared by Degeling with WIRED presented a slow – motion, close – up view of the bullet hitting Kirk’s neck. The tone of the video was conspiratorial, with the uploader adding 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, this video was still available online. It had been up for eight hours and had garnered over 900 comments (with many suggesting that the “black thing” was a microphone).

As of Thursday morning, on Instagram, a search for “Charlie Kirk shot” yielded a close – up video of the incident as the top result. The video autoplays as a thumbnail without any warning. At the time of writing, it had 15.3 million views.

Violation of Platform Policies

Not only are the Kirk shooting videos spreading rapidly, but some also clearly violate the platforms’ social media policies. For example, TikTok’s terms of use explicitly state that the company prohibits “gory, gruesome, disturbing, or extremely violent content.”

TikTok spokesperson Jamie Favazza issued a statement, saying, “We are deeply saddened by the assassination of Charlie Kirk and extend our heartfelt condolences to his wife Erika, their two young children, and their family and friends. Such heinous violent acts have no place in our society. We remain committed to proactively enforcing our Community Guidelines and have implemented additional safeguards to prevent users from unexpectedly viewing footage that violates our rules.”

On other platforms, the Kirk video occupies a gray area. Meta’s overarching policy involves age – restricting certain content, requiring warning labels, and removing some graphic depictions of violence.

A Meta spokesperson stated that, in accordance with the company’s Violent and Graphic Content policies, a “Mark as Sensitive” warning label is being applied to the footage of the Kirk shooting, and it is being age – gated to users 18 and older. The spokesperson also mentioned that Meta has 15,000 individuals reviewing content, though it was not specified whether these are employees or contractors. The company does not permit videos that glorify, represent, or support the incident or the perpetrator.

Meta further states in its online Transparency Center that it does not allow content related to “terrorist attacks, hate events, multiple – victim violence or attempted multiple – victim violence, serial murders, or hate crimes perpetrator – generated content; or third – party imagery depicting the moment of such attacks on visible victims.” Nevertheless, the widely – circulated footage of Kirk being shot is currently allowed. It will receive a warning label and be age – gated, but will not be removed from Meta platforms unless it is determined to clearly violate the “glorified content” policy.

X informs 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 also notes that content that is “explicitly threatening, inciting, glorifying, or expressing a desire for violence” is prohibited.

Mahadevan from the Poynter Institute claims to have seen the Kirk shooting video on X multiple times without his consent on Wednesday, comparing it to a mainstream version of “4Chan.” (He also mentions that upon opening Facebook on Thursday morning, he was immediately presented with a video of Kirk being shot.)

X did not respond to requests for comment or questions regarding whether the Kirk video was considered “excessively gory” by its standards.

Moreover, X seems to have another content moderation issue. A few hours after Kirk was pronounced dead, the AI chatbot Grok, which operates on X, wrongly insisted that Kirk was “fine and active as ever.” X did not respond to further inquiries from WIRED regarding Grok’s misinformation about the Kirk shooting.

Bluesky has announced that it is suspending accounts that encourage violence and taking down close – up videos of the event.

For the time being, the videos of Charlie Kirk’s shooting continue to spread online.

Mahadevan concludes, “This has unforeseen psychological ramifications for our society. We are witnessing posts on X where people claim, ‘Congratulations, you’ve radicalized me.’ Part of this is due to their exposure to the video of Kirk’s death. They are not merely reading about it; they are actually seeing it.”

Additional reporting by Kylie Robison.

Updated: 9/11/2025 4:00 pm EST: This story has been updated with comments from TikTok and to reflect the current institutional affiliation of a researcher.