Many of you have been asking me about the assassination of the conservative commentator Charlie Kirk earlier this week during a campus event at Utah Valley University. At the time of this writing, little is yet known about the shooter’s motives, but there have been enough cases of political violence over the past year that I think I can say what I’m about to with conviction…
Those of us who study online culture like to use the phrase, “Twitter is not real life.” But as we saw yet again this week, when the digital discourses fostered on services like Twitter (and Bluesky, and TikTok) do intersect with the real world, whether they originate from the left or the right, the results are often horrific.
This should tell us all we need to know about these platforms: they are toxic and dehumanizing. They are responsible, as much as any other force, for the unravelling of civil society that seems to be accelerating.
We know these platforms are bad for us, so why are they still so widely used? They tell a compelling story: that all of your frantic tapping and swiping makes you a key part of a political revolution, or a fearless investigator, or a righteous protestor – that when you’re online, you’re someone important, doing important things during an important time.
But this, for the most part, is an illusion. In reality, you’re toiling anonymously in an attention factory, while billionaire overseers mock your efforts and celebrate their growing net worths.
After troubling national events, there’s often a public conversation about the appropriate way to respond. Here’s one option to consider: Quit using these social platforms. Find other ways to keep up with the news, or spread ideas, or be entertained. Be a responsible grown-up who does useful things; someone who serves real people in the real world.
To save civil society, we need to end our decade-long experiment with global social platforms. We tried them. They became dark and awful. It’s time to move on.
Enough is enough.
Just left social media after all of this, probably will be working on deleting most accounts entirely soon. The coverage, reaction, everything about this event and what it means made me sick to my stomach. These platforms bring out the worst in people, I never thought that in this country we would be pushed to the point where people would be using their actual names, attached with their jobs no less, openly celebrating a political assassination. Regardless of views we should all understand this to be wrong.
I realize that this was finally the last straw for me to walk away from these platforms once and for all.
This might be one of your most important posts yet, Cal. I wish I could have said this as clearly and succinctly as you.
Couldn’t agree more: I wrote a book on this “Against Platforms”. I make essentially the same argument. I also make the case that it is our institutions that have been hollowed out by platforms, and like this post, ask us to not just leave behind the platform experiment but also to reimagine how our institutions can serve us in their absence.
Thanks for sharing! Just put your book on hold at my library. I’m ready to imagine a future without these platforms.
Fully aligned with Nathan’s comment here. Thank you Cal. I am grateful to have someone to look to that I can trust and will think calmly and rationally.
Seeing what networked, algorithmically powered media has done to people in my own family (for us it’s not the kids, it’s the parents), this couldn’t be a more important post. Well-stated. Someone should share this on Facebook (in spite of the irony).
The reactions from my parent’s generation on social media are deeply concerning.
I have
“They tell a compelling story: that all of your frantic tapping and swiping makes you a key part of a political revolution, or a fearless investigator, or a righteous protestor – that when you’re online, you’re someone important, doing important things during an important time. But this, for the most part, is an illusion. In reality, you’re toiling anonymously in an attention factory, while billionaire overseers mock your efforts and celebrate their growing net worths.”
Very well said. Reminded of the book “Propaganda” written by the frech genius Jacques Ellul:
“The more his needs increase in the collective society, the more propaganda must give man the feeling that he is a free individual. Propaganda alone can create this feeling, which, in turn, will integrate the individual into collective movements. Thus, it is a powerful boost to his self-esteem. Though a mass instrument. It addresses itself to each individual. It appeals to me. It appeals to my common sense, my desires, and provokes my wrath and my indignation. It evokes my feelings of justice and my desire for freedom. It gives me violent feelings, which lift me out of the daily grind. As soon as I have been politicized by propaganda, I can from my heights look down on daily trifles. My boss, who does not share my convictions, is merely a poor fool, a prey to the illusions of an evil world. I take my revenge upon him by being enlightened; I have understood the situation and know what ought to be done; I hold the key to events and am involved in dangerous and exciting activities. This feeing will be all the stronger when propaganda appeals to my decision and seems to be greatly concerned with my action: “Everything is in the clutches of evil. There is a way out. But only if everybody participates. You must participate. If you don’t, all will be lost, through your fault.” This is the feeling that propaganda must generate. My opinion, which society once scorned, now becomes, important and decisive. No longer has it importance only for me, but also for the whole range of political affairs and the entire social body. A voter may well feel that his vote has no importance or value. But propaganda demonstrates that the action in which it involves us is of fundamental importance, and that everything depends on me. It boosts my ego by giving me a strong sense of my responsibility; it leads me to assume a posture of authority among my fellows, makes me take myself seriously by appealing to me in impassioned tones, with total conviction, and gives me the feeling that it’s a question of All or Nothing. Thanks to propaganda, the diminished individual obtains the very satisfaction he needs”.
Such a great book!
You’ve been saying this for a long time, and your followers get it. We’ve now reached the tipping point. Gov Cox is calling it a watershed moment and is alos imploring the nation that enough is enough, that people need to go outside and touch some grass. Individuals have a lot of power to stop the insanity, but I fear so many are literally addicted and won’t or can’t. Keep beating the drum. Thank you, Cal.
The only sane reaction to the crazy seems to be to quit using social media, finally the kick in the butt I needed to deactivate all my accounts.
Thank you.
Was society so civil before social media? Toxic viewpoints like Kirk’s were still shared on the radio and the television, though I suppose social media helped to spread them.
They are only “toxic” in your opinion, or because you are uninformed, relying on secondary sources with out of context quotes instead of primary sources. Calling Kirk “toxic” immediately alienates conservatives, and in doing so you are part of the problem by posting such things online, even though this is not social media. Notice how Cal’s original post did not show one way or another what he thinks of Kirk. It’s not even the point after all.
+100!
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I have resigned from most social media, starting with Facebook in 2016. I have three accounts left: LinkedIn, BlueSky, and Substack. I have stopped posting in general, as my drill sergeant taught me a long time ago that if you can be seen, you can be hit. I started my career at the dawn of the internet when Usenet was the 1st, it’s still around today. I certainly had my fair share of flames, but mostly about technical issues. Today, I got furious when I saw a post of ICE handcuffing teenagers on BlueSky, so I need to reflect on that and the emotions that overcame me. I am seeking a job, so I don’t want to ditch LinkedIn. It seems that Substack has good technical content from the users I want to follow. What are Cal’s thoughts on what social media to follow and being prudent, not sticking your head in the sand?
Bluesky had tons of people cheering the assassination and is a leftist echo chamber.
LinkedIn is best used without the social media component of it.
Social media is generally not good for keeping up to date on things. Youtube (if that’s considered social media) can be decent. Books are good. In terms of news, a newsletter like 1440 or The Flip Side is a good option. The WSJ can be a decent center left perspective (it used to be center right, but has shifted left since the new editor took over a few years ago). The WSJ editorials or the NYPost can be a decent center right perspective. However, the NYPost is a tabloid, so it’s not always edited well and has a bunch of junk/celebrity/clickbait stories, but the news articles are fairly center right.
How did you read Cal’s post and then ask him “what social media to follow”?
Em’s point stands regardless of the post. Everyone logging off more is necessary, but likely not sufficient.
Kirk’s viewpoints or immense negative influence on society need not be whitewashed in order to disavow political violence. It’s not complicated.
Would be curious to know how open and willing you would be to discussing his view of the toxicity with the OP.
I think it would be hard to argue that social media made political discourse more civil; or rational; or constructive; or really more positive by any metric you could reasonably apply.
I seen nor heard toxicity in his statements during his events. I hear a man speaking about how HE feels, His values and beliefs, he spews no violent rhetoric towards any race nationality gender or whatever. He speaks the truth of what he sees and feels. Why is he labeled all these things just because people don’t like what he says and it doesn’t go along with the ant parade. Yet there are others in the recent past that had to say some pretty awful things about conservative white men like myself. Including the outright threatening white men with violence by people who are supposed to be our leaders. Are we not allowed to speak up? I wish people would really wake up. I have a challenge for people, take a week, after that week is over come back on here at least every racist act or comment that you yourself saw during your week. Most people I know have nothing on the list I’ve done this before. Get certain people in media outlets have people believing that there’s this really big race problem in the United States. And from where I’ve grown up in south Georgia living in mixed race neighborhoods they’re a very little that I ever saw. And I’ve had this discussion with my black friends asking him when have they ever been treated in a racial manner. Most of them unless they’re talking about the cops of course can’t give me an answer. But I could fill up seven or eight maybe 9 pages of of racial prejudice against myself during my lifetime. Yet I have never treated anyone in that manner. And really try the challenge to see what you can come up with. And don’t take anything from the news you have to see it with your own eyes. Sorry about this long post from a newcomer on here. But you folks sound like y’all might have a little bit of sense. Regardless if our opinion is different or not. As far as social media goes, it should go. There’s a thousand reasons to shut it all down. Several of them had to do with kids dying and getting hurt from them stupid challenges. I’ll get off my soapbox now, have a good evening folks.
I think the biggest difference now is the algorithm and the never ending scroll. TV and radio are also regulated so the most extreme viewpoints are usually filtered out. With social media, the most vitriolic, extreme people not only are given an audience, but incentive to monetize their extremism which often leads to even more inflammatory content. algorithmic social media feeds us a constant stream of views that often become more extreme the longer we interact. There will always be people who harbor dangerous extreme views, but it’s time we stop giving them platforms and ways to erode society.
Thank you, Cal. I admire your courage in speaking out so directly about the destructive impact of social platforms. I stand with you, enough is enough.
Thank you, Cal. It’s horrifying that we got to this point, but not surprising.
It’s hard to stay optimistic, but, as other commenters have mentioned, I hope this will in fact be a tipping point to our society and that we can finally move on from the social network experiment.
This needs to be shouted from every rooftop, every hour, of every day. Never stop pushing on this thread, Cal. It’s our only way out of a very bleak future.
Overconsumption of media is destroying our social fabric and many are too busy scrolling to realize it. I am afraid that not even an event like this is enough to convince people that we need to fix this ourselves.
I came to this conclusion yesterday as well. Not only do these platforms make me anxious and feel unwell, I can not honestly tell myself that my consumption and contribution to this content is making a positive difference. I think it is still most likely that people will continue to use these platforms and civil society will continue to degrade, but I think finding ways to stay informed without social media is a MUCH more positive and possibly impactful contribution to fighting against it.
I could not have agreed with this blog more. Snd as some have said, these social media hollow-out our institutions, politics, democracy and even out childrens futures. Social media does not provide freedom of speech, it actually does the opposite. It is seen in every country, as well as mine (The Netherlands). Soon I will remove my last social media account (LinkedIn), as I wil replace it with a wordpress resume.
It’s like Doritos. We all know that Doritos are bad for us. But there they are. And they make a lot of money. How do you get rid of the the Doritos??
This is why the analogy between social media and ultra processed food is so spot-on yet also so despairing. We all know both of these things are horrible for us, however, nothing’s being done about it.
Very well said, Cal. I intend to share this post with everyone I know, especially those who still rely on these platforms for their information.
Keep up the good fight. More and more are jumping on board, finally.
“…you’re toiling anonymously in an attention factory, while billionaire overseers mock your efforts and celebrate their growing net worths”
Very well (and succinctly) said.
Been listening to your podcasts a lot as of late, I’ve been on the fence about leaving social media. After witnessing the aforementioned event unfold, I too was sick to my stomach and I removed these apps from my phone. This article confirms that I made the right move. Thank you Cal.
Completely agree, Cal. Thank you for all your great work through the years on this — it helped me quit social media back in 2016 and I’m infinitely better off for it.
I do not see a proper line of reasoning connecting the assassination with the social media. I assume the attacker has watched many videos of Charlie Kirk’s talks on YouTube and then decided to attack him.
I can guess your line of reasoning is that the social media’s algorithms do not show opposing views to the user and radicalise them by showing them videos approving their views again and again.
I understand the sentiment, but normal, good people quitting
Twitter would only mean that the discourse that inevitably continues on these platforms (which are not going away overnight) becomes even more untethered from reality, and media-caused crimes like this become more likely to happen.
If a center-right Republican gets assassinated even while normal people were on the platform were pushing back against characterizations of him and others like him as “facist,” etc, then just imagine what horrors would happen if the few sane people on these platforms quit.
For me, the normal/good people continuing to use these platforms gives them legitimacy they wouldn’t have if the “normal” people stopped using them. People only pay attention to the platforms because it seems like everyone else does.
I used to think staying on platforms was important to push against extremism too. But I’ve learned that the only people seeing my posts already agree with me. If the platforms were actually showing diverse viewpoints, I would consider staying but they make more money by creating echo chambers. I’m focusing on engaging in civil debate in my real life instead of online.
I tend to agree, but internally have struggled to know if I should be engaging in a positive way to counter the negative. Is a positive voice more impactful than just not engaging at all?
Very unlikely. As Marshall McLuhan said: the medium *is* the message. Whether “positive” or “negative,” all plays into the “attention factory.” The house (the conquering oligarchs who run the factory) always wins.
We think we can use these as tools for good. In reality, we are the tools.
Cal’s advice is spot-on. It’s time.
This is an amazing post Cal. We are all, at least partially, complicit suckers and it’s time to stop pretending otherwise. This message needs to get national, if not global attention.
Well said Cal Newport!!!
I did not expect you to comment on this. However, I appreciate your awareness and the response. If anything that situation has shown is that there is lack of morality that is being spread across internet. Right, left or indifferent humans have lost touch with what separates us from animals. Living the deep life has never been more critical, in my opinion.
Right now, Bluesky is a reasonably good platform. You have lots of control over what you see and what you don’t see. You cannot pay to get more attention. There is not one algorithm to sort the posts of those you follow.
And most toxic people are on X.
Bluesky has had the most posts cheering the assassination, maybe only rivaled by TikTok. I would call Bluesky one of the worst platforms to be on. And it’s a far left echo chamber.
While X can be toxic, at least it’s evenly split between left and right.
> Bluesky has had the most posts cheering the assassination, maybe only rivaled by TikTok.
Bluesky is relatively tiny compared to Twitter & TikTok, so it out-ranking either of them on anything is statistically improbable. My anecdotal experience on Bluesky is that most people were condemning the violence, so don’t always trust what other platforms tell you is happening there.
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes! Thank you, Cal!
Thank You Cal for your moral clarity!
We need people like you more than ever. I have always looked up to you.
Here is Claude’s evaluation of my post.
Your reflection shows solid professional judgment and self-awareness. Here’s my assessment of the professionalism in your approach:
**What’s working well:**
– Recognizing emotional triggers and stepping back to reflect rather than reacting impulsively
– Understanding that visibility during job searches requires extra caution
– Maintaining LinkedIn specifically for professional networking needs
– Curating platforms based on content value (Substack for technical content)
**The key tension you’re navigating:**
You’re wrestling with the classic dilemma between staying informed/engaged and protecting your professional reputation. Your drill sergeant’s advice about visibility is particularly relevant in today’s screenshot-and-share environment.
**Professional considerations:**
– Your current three-platform approach seems reasonable – LinkedIn for networking, Substack for learning, BlueSky for broader awareness
– Consider treating social media consumption like any other professional skill: deliberate and purposeful rather than reactive
– The fact that you recognized your emotional response to that ICE post and paused to reflect shows exactly the kind of judgment employers value
**Regarding Cal Newport’s perspective** (assuming you’re referencing the digital minimalism author): He’d likely support your reduced social media footprint and emphasize that staying informed doesn’t require constant platform engagement. You can stay aware of important issues through curated sources without the emotional volatility of social feeds.
Your approach demonstrates professional maturity – you’re not burying your head in the sand, but you’re also not letting platforms derail your career goals. That balance is precisely what professionalism looks like in the digital age.
If you haven’t found anything more compelling than social media, you haven’t looked hard enough!
Getting rid of social media does not eliminate Original Sin. Tens of thousands of Americans were killed by guns prior to social media existing. I support not using these platforms, but we don’t know that they caused it. There was a school shooting that same day, I don’t think we can attribute that do social media.
What an absolute myopic-US centric view of the world.
Newsflash, every Western Liberal Country in the world has social media and what is the violence like in those countries?
Grow up, there are more forces at work causing extreme violence than social media.
In 2024, Sweden recorded 92 cases of lethal violence, which marked a decrease from previous years and was the lowest number since 2014.
Gang violence, especially bombings and shootings, has intensified in recent months, with January 2025 alone seeing around 30 gang-related explosions.
Social media in this era is bad and I think the world would be a better place if facebook never existed and mark Zuckerberg never thought of it. But i also think media is to blame. Channels like MSNBC and Fox News and others even youtube creators distort stories to fit their agenda. And people who snort that media drug 24/7 lose touch with reality no matter how educated they are. .They claim it’s just entertainment but lots of people take it as the gospel. Hope these corporations develop some type of ethics before more damage is done to society.
As someone from outside the US, I do not quite get the context here.
I get the general idea that social media is bad. But what’s the connection that Cal’ is drawing between Charlie Kirk’s assassination and the perils of social media?
Essentially, the unjustified + toxic narrative on social media that painted Charlie Kirk as a threat to democracy (because he was a fascist, bigot and racist) fueled the hatred for him.
I think it goes both ways. After it happened, many on the right were rushing to blame the left for it without any evidence, which is just as unproductive and “toxic” as the folks condemning Kirk originally. No one can turn the temperature down on social media because the entire ecosystem is designed to raise the temperature because it keeps people engaged.
Brilliantly put, as per usual, Cal.
Breaking the thermometer doesn’t make it any less true that the heat is rising, and unfortunately it’s only one political camp that’s been getting burned in recent years.
To stick with your metaphor, social media is not the “thermometer.” It may not be the match either, but it is most certainly the tinder and the lighter fluid.
Well said, Cal. Social media, in its early days, used to be fun. You chatted with people with like interests. It’s morphed into toxic. After seeing stream after stream of “helpful” information early in COVID, I started backing off it. Is it any wonder people are depressed? Instead of widening people to the world like the early days, it’s putting people into a bubble where they can only see anger and no hope.
Also, just putting in a word on Cory Doctorow’s book Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It https://www.amazon.com/Enshittification-Everything-Suddenly-Worse-About/dp/0374619328
Thank you for this poignant reflection. I said the same to my high school students this week, while also encouraging them to lean into their faith. I can only imagine the abundant blessings they would experience if they exchanged TikTok for communion with a higher power. I told them our culture is not always this divisive and aggressive; the opposite was true in the wake of 9/11. I put it on them to be the change. I will be sharing this post with them.
Well,
You talk about “saving civil society” by quitting social media, while ignoring the fact that millions are suffering and being killed — and the world stays silent. If anything, it’s social media that has forced the truth out, especially about Palestine, where over 600,000 civilians have been murdered since October 7, 2023.
Without these platforms, nobody would even know the scale of what’s happening. So maybe instead of blaming social media, ask why “civil society” only seems to matter when it’s one of your own — but not when entire populations are wiped out in silence. This double standard is interesting but not unexpected. 🙏 Thanks
I understand your pov. I’ve read most of your books. I would like to mention that social media has been a platform for the voiceless where it has been the only way sometimes we get to know what’s really happening around the world, instead of one sided story. That being said, thank you for valuable insight that you always put out! Sending peace 🙂
At this point the only thing that gives me any hope is comments on posts like this of people saying they are quitting social media in disgust.
Quitting these platforms years ago is up there with quitting smoking as one of the best decisions I ever made. You feel so much better for it.
LOVE THIS. Agree 100%.
I like the value Saj points out.
If those who have the awareness and ability to pause and respond with something helpful on these platforms do it more, maybe there’d be less anger and pain.
Wow must simultaneously do two things:
1. Convince people to quit social media.
2. Regulate social media.
At the very least, infinite scroll feeds, auto play, personalized data collection, intermittent notifications, and other manipulative features need to be regulated, preferably outlawed.
Great piece. I stopped using social media (except GoodReads) long ago. Found it made no difference in the sales of my novel.
“ Find other ways to keep up with the news”—how?
For conservatives, X is the only platform. Not FOX, and definitely not any of the legacy media that hide and distort the real news.
Elon saved countless conservative lives having purchased Twitter. If it were not for X, what was done to Charlie would have been done to many more of his allies. If you think otherwise, that’s your blindspot.
The unintended consequence of following your advice on social media abstinence is that blindspots like this persist, especially as most sources of news are polluted with hoaxes and lies against conservatives. So curation of truthful news becomes nearly impossible without some social media activity.
This post is a literal example of what he’s talking about. Newsflash: there are plenty of good sources of news and you should be reading many of them, not just the stuff that fits your worldview. X is not a news source, its endless opinion.
I was formerly subscribed to the New York Times, Economist, WSJ, and Financial Times. They’re the modern equivalent of the Rwandan radio. They manufacture and amplify hoaxes. When I first realized the Charlottesville’s “Fine People on both sides” incident was a complete hoax, I was shocked. Which then led me to unraveling every other hoax. From the “drinking bleach” hoax to the “Russian collusion” hoax. If you’re viscerally skeptical of these being hoaxes (as I once was), visit: americandebunk(dot)com. The cognitive dissonance I experienced afterward was destabilizing. I still read NYTimes for Cal’s writings. But that’s all.
Regardless of your beliefs, getting news from any social media site will always be filtered through the biases of the person sharing it. There’s no accountability for anything posted there. Legacy media has its problems, for sure, but there are actual laws (libel, etc.) regulating how it operates and a burden of verifiability to avoid legal action — something completely absent from any social platform.
What about the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act (part of 2013 NDAA), which repealed the prohibition that kept the US government from using propaganda on US citizens? This law protected legacy media from incurring existential financial risk for propagating hoaxes that were both extremely libelous and slanderous. Where is the accountability for libel and slander against Trump and his supporters regarding the Charlottesville “There’s fine people on both sides” hoax that programmed millions to hallucinating Nazis and Nazi sympathizers?
I use curated news services which provide news summaries with links to follow if I choose to dive deeper on a particular story. There are multiple providers with center-right or center-left slants. My favorite is a three times a week, Christian one written by a staff focused on providing center-center news. (The Pour Over) They only publish three times a week to avoid the 24/7 fire hydrant effect.
I’ve been fooling myself, believing social media has been helpful in reaching folks for my bricks n mortar business. I’m in Australia and feel we are one election away from where you guys are in the States, and I have to make a stand.
So this is it. Enough is enough. I’ll be returning to your course Life of Focus, Cal. And my fam and I shall revisit the 2020 doco, Social Dilemma… and figure this sh*t out.
Well said!
Oh social networks were toxic in 2020 and before that but you waited until this moment?
Thank you for sharing. I’m ‘happy’ to hear I’m not the only one tired of content for content’s sake and keyboard warriors and trolls, and algorithsm and sensationalist news, etc, even though, even more ironically, part of what I do is marketing (at least it’s for NFPs and more cause awareness, but I’m still feeding the beasts). I just worry that if we all leave social then whose left to challenge those remaining – which is silly as that’s just adding to the toxicity isn’t it, and there isn’t a lot of friendly debate going on, rather, tearing each other down.
The problem is not just Social Media. Social Media is neutral. I see the problem as a lack of civil discourse. The rot that exists on Social Media comes from the top. This President and his supporters exhibit the epitome of ugly discourse, and it breeds a permission to be even more hideous by its followers. As a society, we believe in free speech, but free speech on Social Media has become extreme bullying of those who don’t fit the narrow definition of these people. It has become a real threat. One only needs to look at Rwanda and other acts of genocide to see that ‘free speech’ was used to dehumanize and create that ‘permission’ to commence violence. Before social media rallys, posters, radio and other vehicles were used to conduct this same campaign. Until the President and his supports moderate their speech, this will continue.
I agree with you overall point re: disengaging w/socials will help preserve civil society AND I agree that the power social media has over people’s lives is part of what got civil society to a more polarized place.
But at this point, a lot more is needed to save civil society than “touching grass.” I live in a poor, rural, red state, and — I’m going to be honest — human rights and infrastructure are declining rapidly since Trump took office and before then as well. I didn’t even know about the Kirk assassination for a while after it happened and have still not seen the social media reaction about it because I don’t have social media. It might be scary to see people celebrating this act of political violence, but it is also scary to see members of my community be the targets of state-sanctioned violence as well.
Disengaging with social media is the answer. I got rid of Facebook and Twitter, maintaining only Instagram for family connections. It’s increasingly apparent to me that Insta is just as bad as those other platforms in serving up garbage.