We Study Mass Shooters. Something Terrifying Is Happening Online

garciasn

https://archive.is/eTGwW

kelseyfrog

I don't understand the authors "true crime" reference. I'd always associated true crime with middle aged white suburban moms podcast habits, not teens and young adults glorifying mass shootings. Did I miss something or did the author?

burnt-resistor

Not very much substance or evidence in this op-ed article, there should be at least some support. Yes, online glorification of such needs to be shutdown and that means creative MMO platforms must be held accountable to provide effective moderation. More broadly, I'm concerned that the civilization glue of community continues to be in retreat, lack of uniform mental healthcare and healthcare, and lack of reasonable bounds on who can/'t have firearms with similar respect as vehicular operation. While that means I'm concerned about the same loser types Columbine that continue to be a problem (as mentioned), but I'm also concerned about organized domestic and international terrorists (including accelerationist, race-oriented, and religious groups) out to do much greater harm in ways that aren't just mass shootings. Also, AI chatbots opens up the potential of automating sentiment manipulation through astroturfing leading towards radicalization goals. Final qualitative observation: Functional, healthy civilizations seem to produce far fewer revenge-suicide events per capita per time interval.

embeng4096

I'd recommend Katherine Dee's Substack, Default Friend, for a more in-depth look at this type of thing. The NYT op-ed dips into the usual tropes of the attention economy, true crime, copycat behavior, viral memes and social media algorithms, calls to safeguard the algorithms and AI. Dee's article "The Nihilism of the Mass Shooter" (written in 2022, even) ( https://default.blog/p/the-nihilism-of-the-mass-shooter ) provides more specifics than the generalities in this op-ed. I'm a regular reader, so it's easy for me to see, but I believe that her passion about investigating and reporting on these things is visible even to a new reader. It's clear to me that she actually spends time looking at the sources, e.g. there's a link in the article to one of her sources, a pdf of the law enforcement report on a shooter from Parkland.

9864247888754

An opportunity for the NYT to publish clickbait headlines?