The aftermath of the Parkland mass shooting exemplifies the ugly side of social media

Want a perfect example of the kind of content challenges Facebook and Twitter are up against? Just look at what happened over the past few days in the aftermath of the mass shooting last week in Parkland, Fla., which left 17 dead and has reignited discussion about gun control in America.

In the week since, we’ve seen the worst social media has to offer.

Russian bots on Twitter tried to create animosity among critics and advocates of the Second Amendment. High school students who survived the shooting have been mocked online for standing up to politicians and calling for gun control. And now conspiracy theories are circulating on Facebook and Twitter to try and tear down those same students, calling them “crisis actors” and suggesting they’re puppets for liberal politicians.

What we’ve learned from Parkland is that, even in the wake of tragedy, divisive and troubling content still thrives on social media platforms. No one is safe from mockery and ridicule, including children and teenagers. And it’s not entirely clear what anyone can do about it.

Here’s one example: Conservative political commentator and author Dinesh D’Souza mocked grieving Parkland High School students on Twitter.

Here’s another, calling Parkland student David Hogg — who has been identified as one of the most vocal and visible students from the school — an “attention whore.”

The tweets are insensitive and embarrassing. Are they against Twitter’s user guidelines? Probably not. But Twitter is full of tweets like these, stuff that feels gross or mean or uncomfortable, but doesn’t merit any formal action from the company because it’s not necessarily threatening or abusive.

It’s one of the tough challenges Facebook and Twitter deal with, and one of the reasons social media can feel like such an ugly and discouraging place.

We’ve also seen conspiracy theories run rampant. One Facebook user posted that Hogg was a “crisis actor” and not an actual Parkland student. The conspiracy post was supposedly shared more than 110,000 times in six hours, according to a screenshot from NBC News’s Micah Grimes. (It appears that Facebook has since removed the offending account.)

This other Facebook video, which calls Hogg a “crisis actor scumbag,” has more than 20,000 views. Even the President’s son, Donald Trump Jr, liked a tweet that suggested Hogg was “running cover” for his father, who is apparently a former FBI agent.

The harassment got bad enough that Marco Rubio, the Republican Senator from Florida, had to come out on Twitter in defense of Parkland’s students.

Part of the problem is that Facebook’s and Twitter’s algorithms are set up to reward posts that receive lots of shares or comments — “engagement” that is considered a signal to show those videos to even more people. Even if Facebook can catch videos on the same day they’re posted, the Hogg video is evidence that misinformation can and will still spread like wildfire before anyone has the chance to take it down.

The Parkland shooting has created a perfect storm for the social media world we now live in. There have been positives — Facebook and Twitter have given high school students an incredible megaphone to come out and push for stricter gun control regulations. Teenagers who might otherwise be ignored are sending messages that are reaching millions and, in some cases, publicly challenging elected officials in an effort to get something done.

But it’s hard to have to witness the ugly side of social media. And in the wake of tragedy, it looks uglier than ever.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via