Hashtags and Hit Lists: Social Media’s Role in Justifying Violence
A new study reveals that shifting attitudes and social media platforms have created a permissive environment where acts of violence are celebrated and emulated.
Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.
About the Author
Dr. Colin Wright is the CEO/Editor-in-Chief of Reality’s Last Stand, an evolutionary biology PhD, and Manhattan Institute Fellow. His writing has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Times, the New York Post, Newsweek, City Journal, Quillette, Queer Majority, and other major news outlets and peer-reviewed journals.
A new study from the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) has revealed an alarming surge in anti-civil activity online following the assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The NCRI study, titled “Killing with Applause: Emergent Permission Structures for Murder in the Digital Age,” highlights the profound societal implications of this event, showcasing the disturbing normalization of violence against corporate figures and the role of social media in amplifying such narratives.
While the specifics of Thompson’s murder are shocking, the NCRI warns that the broader cultural shift it appears to be facilitating may be even more worrisome. The data reveals an evolving “permission structure” online—a system in which social media platforms amplify narratives, and susceptible individuals provide justification—resulting in the normalization of violence on a scale previously confined to small extremist communities.
The murder, which occurred outside a Manhattan hotel during an investors’ conference, has sparked a wave of online glorification, memes, and merchandise celebrating the shooter, Luigi Mangione. The NCRI’s findings expose an unsettling trend: mainstream social media platforms are becoming breeding grounds for rhetoric that not only justifies violence but also facilitates its transition from the digital realm to the real world.
Public Opinion Reflects Shifting Norms
The NCRI’s research reveals a major societal shift, highlighting how public opinion has veered dangerously toward accepting violence as a legitimate response to perceived systemic injustices. Nearly half of Americans surveyed (44 percent) believe that Thompson’s murder was at least somewhat justified, reflecting a growing openness to violent means of addressing grievances. This finding is particularly alarming as it indicates that support for such extreme measures is no longer confined to isolated groups but is increasingly mainstream.
The data shows that social media plays a critical role in shaping these attitudes. Among heavy social media users—those who spend more than 5.4 hours per day on these platforms—the justification rate surges to 64 percent, starkly contrasting with just 23 percent among low-use individuals (0-1.3 hours per day).
Even more concerning is the generational divide: a staggering 78.8 percent of respondents aged 18-27 expressed at least partial justification for the murder, signaling a profound shift among younger demographics toward endorsing “targeted violence.”
The younger generation’s overwhelming approval for violent actions suggests a troubling cultural normalization of aggression as a tool for addressing grievances.
Platforms of Concern: Bluesky and Beyond
One of the most striking revelations in the NCRI study is the role of mainstream platforms like Bluesky in fostering permissive attitudes toward violence. Bluesky, widely lauded by political progressives as a kinder and friendlier alternative to X/Twitter, now exhibits the highest justification rates for the UHC CEO’s murder (78 percent), surpassing even extremist platforms like Gab and 4chan.
Bluesky’s user base skews younger and more tech-savvy, demographics that the NCRI study identifies as particularly susceptible to violent rhetoric. The combination of algorithmic amplification of extreme views and a vulnerable audience creates an environment ripe for the proliferation of violent narratives. This grim reality was recently illustrated when Bluesky users called for the murder of journalist Jesse Singal, en masse, due to his fact-based reporting on pediatric “gender medicine.” Users even posted what they believed to be his address and photos of his apartment door online.
Across social media platforms, including X, Reddit, and TikTok, there has been an alarming increase in content justifying violence. Viral hashtags like #EatTheRich and “Free Luigi” dominate many online discussions, and moderation efforts often lag behind the pace of content creation and dissemination, allowing violent rhetoric to flourish.
From Memes to Real-World Impacts
The transition of violent rhetoric from online spaces to real-world actions is perhaps one of the most troubling revelations of the NCRI study. Viral memes, fancam edits, and merchandise such as “Free Luigi” t-shirts have commodified his image. Events like the “UHC Shooter Lookalike Contest,” held in Washington Square Park, reveals how online rhetoric is influencing real-world behaviors. Participants, many of whom were dressed to mimic Mangione, gathered to celebrate and parody the assassination, demonstrating an alarming erosion of societal norms.
On social media, fancam edits and viral videos glorify Mangione’s actions, framing him as an anti-establishment icon. According to the report:
These videos frequently feature romantic or hyperbolic captions, highlight niche cultural affinities, or focus on his physical appearance, further amplifying his image and fueling narratives that glamorize his actions. This glorification fuels permission structures that could inspire others to perceive violence as a legitimate form of activism.
The hashtag #EatTheRich has surged by over 500 percent week-over-week, accompanying calls for violence against corporate figures and circulating “CEO Wanted” posters and executive “hit lists.” These posters, which feature “mocked-up mugshots of healthcare executives,” promote vigilante justice and represent “a deliberate attempt to provoke fear and destabilize corporate leadership.”
According to the NCRI report, “The murder of Brian Thompson appears to have catalyzed a dangerous feedback loop, where glorification, humor, conspiracy, and targeted harassment create an environment ripe for further violence.”
This blending of online rhetoric and offline action reflects what the NCRI describes as an “emergent permission structure,” which they describe as “a framework that justifies previously unacceptable beliefs or actions, with a clear division of labor: Social media platforms provide the amplification, while psychologically susceptible individuals provide the justification…” Taken in concert, these elements form a system that normalizes and even glamorizes acts of violence.
The Lionization of Luigi Mangione
Luigi Mangione’s transformation from an obscure figure to a symbol of anti-establishment resistance has been meteoric. Within days of his arrest, his social media following exploded from 5,000 to over 400,000. The slogan “Free Luigi” was posted 47,000 times in 48 hours, generating nearly 800,000 engagements across X and Reddit.
The commodification of Mangione’s image extends beyond social media. T-shirts, mugs, and other merchandise featuring his likeness are being sold on e-commerce platforms, trivializing his actions while profiting from the controversy. New cryptocurrency “memecoins” such as $LUIGI have also emerged, turning a deadly act into a speculative financial opportunity.
Psychological Drivers
The NCRI study identifies three key predictors of support for the murder: authoritarian tendencies, heavy social media use, and diminished personal agency. These factors interact in a synergistic way, with social media amplifying authoritarian predispositions and fostering the normalization of violence.
The combination of authoritarianism, an external locus of control, and social media’s amplifying effects appears to be a perfect storm for radicalization. These factors interact in a way that makes violence seem rational and even heroic to those who might otherwise feel marginalized or voiceless.
The interaction between these psychological drivers is particularly pronounced among younger demographics, who are both heavy social media users and more likely to experience anxiety or disillusionment with traditional systems. The NCRI study reveals that among users aged 18-27, those with high authoritarian tendencies and heavy social media use were the most likely to justify violence.
A Call to Action
The NCRI study concludes with a warning:
As digital platforms become arenas for ideological conflict, the consequences extend beyond individual incidents of violence to threaten broader public safety and societal cohesion. This transformation underscores the urgent need for strategies that address the root causes of digital radicalization and mitigate its impacts.
The challenges we face require a comprehensive and collaborative response. No single entity can address the complexities of digital radicalization alone. Policymakers, educators, platforms, and community leaders must work in unison to restore the moral boundaries against violent extremism.
The study concludes:
The spread and scope of justification for murder have significantly eroded what was once the monopoly of fringe communities in supporting violence and glorifying shooters online. This shift underscores the urgency of initiatives aimed at reinforcing the bonds of civic trust and restoring civility. Such efforts are essential not only in countering the tide of extremism but also in fostering a resilient society where dialogue and mutual respect prevail.
Wow, you made it to the end! You must have enjoyed it. If so, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription or making a recurring or one-time donation below. Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication, and your help is greatly appreciated.
If you enjoyed this article, you may also like…
We will see a rise in left wing political violence now that cancel culture is not an effective way to silence and intimidate those deemed objectionable.
The ability to cancel people and exert such tremendous power and influence on society has fundamentally changed some of these people’s expectations and given rise to a sense of entitlement to control what people believe and how they act.
I was recently "defriended" for asking, in a FB post, why not donate to someone's medical expenses, as opposed to a wealthy assassin's futile defense fund? This former colleague was also enraged when I responded to hysteria that no, Trump was not going to stop international students from entering the country.
This man is a professor, btw. He harassed me in a d.m. over a post with QUOTES from various black people about defunding the police, including the grandmother of an infant slain in gang crossfire, which brought two non-white detectives to my apartment seeking access to street camera footage. This "professor" wrote: "I'm afraid to work with you" -- because I posted black people's opinions on defunding police....I hadn't even (and generally don't) posted my own words on the matter.
Anyway, I'm "hateful" for trying to get him to calm down over his unfounded fear of losing international students. I'm "hateful" for questioning throwing money at a wealthy assassin's defense fund.
This "professor" claims that "health insurance denial killed (his)father," ergo....so he's a victim, and 99% of his posts are victim-oriented, which I find intriguing given this person is supposed to be a grown man...
Even more acute, I responded to his private message that if he can't look at something objectively, he shouldn't be teaching. (Are we not supposed to evaluate the quality of the argument, and not the opinion, after all?)
I said that in order to do that, one needs to listen to the primary sources. Has he listened to Trump talk about immigration policy? On Rogan? With Musk? And decided based on that what to worry about?
He scoffed at this, with ad hominim response. What angel dust was I smoking? Objectivity? Musk? Rogan???
Which rested my case.
In the meantime, I've become concerned about this person's teaching, and predilection towards to the authoritarianism you mention in this essay. Because he's clearly expressing those traits. Harassing me for posting what isn't even my opinion -- and an ethical question aligned with common professorial questions -- is deeply concerning.
Even more so, that my objective teaching was jettisoned -- I'm gone -- but they kept this dangerous person.