Why graphic videos of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska’s deaths spread online — and what it means for social media moderation

Why graphic videos of Charlie Kirk and Iryna Zarutska’s deaths spread online

Murders of two high-profile figures — right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in Utah and Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska in North Carolina — have filled the news cycle not just because of the incidents themselves, but because of how quickly videos of their killings spread on social media. In a matter of minutes of Kirk being shot on stage, a number of clips began appearing on TikTok, Instagram, and X, many autoplaying as users scrolled. Likewise, raw CCTV footage of the stabbing of Zarutska was posted online, leaving users exposed to raw, graphic material, CNN reported.

How platforms say they censor violent content

All four social media sites have violence content policies, but the policies differ and enforcement is different as well. TikTok states that it bans "gory, gruesome or extremely violent content" but still allows some video shot at a distance. It also ensured it was taking out prompts like "raw video footage" and removing explicit close-ups of Kirk's shooting. Meta said that it was adding "Sensitive Content" labels to videos while restricting them from teen accounts. YouTube showed it was taking out some clips out of context and enhancing verified news coverage. X, on the other hand, had no direct feedback. Even with these efforts, CNN searches continued to return violent Kirk videos, highlighting moderation gaps.

Autoplay settings make exposure more difficult to avoid

Among the largest criticisms has been the manner in which videos autoplay automatically. On Instagram, TikTok, and X, violent content starts playing as soon as the user scrolls over it, sometimes before warnings can catch up. YouTube's hover-play previews likewise expose viewers inadvertently. Watchdog groups argue that this format places engagement above security. The Tech Transparency Project tested teen accounts and found that even with safety restrictions enabled, videos of Kirk's killing were easily accessible — a breakdown, they argue, that demonstrates the platforms are failing to protect children.

Why violent clips are so hard to control

Experts note that after one graphic video surfaces, users repost with slight modifications, making it challenging for automated systems to track them all. Meta admitted to delays in posting warning labels when new videos contain slight differences from known footage. With Kirk, hashtags and trending searches like "actual incident footage" spread quickly before TikTok and Instagram began to censor them. This rapid reposting phenomenon is such that even as companies delete one clip, they can re-emerge in a new avatar, the process continuing.

The psychological impact of graphic exposure

Experts in public health recommend that viewing repeatedly of violent content is capable of inducing "vicarious trauma," where people become psychologically disturbed when they see other human beings get injured. Symptoms can be anything from fear and insomnia to stress reaction. Young consumers are particularly vulnerable, as they may lack the coping mechanisms required to handle graphic content. Charlie Kirk was most popular among young conservatives, and therefore it was likely that teenagers and college students viewed videos of his death on platforms on which they follow him routinely.

Mainstream media vs. social media standards

More traditional media such as CNN and The New York Times tilt away from editing or obscuring gruesome moments, using editorial judgment to balance public interest against tact. Social media has other incentives. Algorithms are interested in attention and engagement, and since more than half of American adults get at least some news through social media, these platforms have effectively become news disseminators without a standard journalistic context. This difference is what makes activists push for more rigid, blanket rules against violent content.

The fight over platform responsibility

Proponents of increased regulation argue that companies are not acting rapidly enough to protect users. Tech Transparency Project's Katie Paul said that the ability for teen accounts to watch raw videos suggests a systemic issue. Social media giants reply that they are tuning their systems, but critics argue that recent moderation rollbacks weakened protections. The debate is now centred on whether self-regulation can work or if government pressure will be required to set boundaries.