Last week social media and the Hollywood newsfeed exploded with news that Perez Hilton, a celebrity gossip blogger, had had a mental breakdown and engaged in self-harm while broadcasting on TikTok Live. Fully nude, covered in blood and obviously in crisis, he streamed live for more than 30 minutes. Thankfully, authorities were able to get to him and he is safe. But the damage has been done.
Thousands of people of all ages watched it unfold in real time. That would be bad enough, but because sensationalism sells there were countless clips being shared on every social media outlet almost instantly. The word I saw most frequently from those who viewed the clips was that it was “disturbing.” It was deeply disturbing, to be sure, but how did we get to a point where this is what it takes for us to be disturbed?
How we have become desensitized to certain content
We have a serious desensitization problem. In just a few short decades our exposure to sensational news has evolved from print newspapers and the evening news to a 24-hour news cycle. Drama and trauma have always drawn viewers, but in those bygone days there were censorship standards that prevented depictions of violence, gore and death.
That safety net is gone.
As a millennial, I vividly recall the first shocking news image I ever saw. It was Patrick Ireland being pulled from the library window at Columbine High School. Then there was 9/11, with footage of the planes hitting the towers playing over and over on every channel. The New York Times published the infamous Falling Man photo on Sept. 12 to widespread backlash. The line between information and exploitation began to blur.
Then came social media, and with it the proliferation of content that should never be seen. Less than a year ago the entire world watched Charlie Kirk be assassinated in broad daylight from a few feet away. The video is still readily available with nothing but a content warning to block it. As horrific as that footage is, it pales in comparison with what unfolded on Perez Hilton’s live stream. Because of the way algorithms work, people who had never even heard of Hilton are stumbling on the story because it’s “trending” and therefore at the top of their suggested content feeds.
We should protect kids from horrific content
I have a teenage daughter who really doesn’t appreciate that she only has a Gabb phone when all of her friends have iPhones. I have never been more grateful that she doesn’t have social media than I was last night. I would rather be unpopular with her than have her exposed to things she can never unsee.
And that’s the problem. No one who saw it can ever unsee it. Every exposure to extreme content reduces our sensitivity to it and it takes progressively worse content to disturb our thoughts and spirits.
We’ve come to tolerate far too much and we have to do something now to protect the tender hearts and minds of our youth. As parents, we must take responsibility for what we allow in our homes. We decide what phones and devices our kids have access to and what level of freedom they enjoy with them. Can we really say that we care about kids’ mental health while simultaneously giving them unfettered access to the worst that humanity chooses to post?
We can also advocate to change the law. If Australia can ban social media for anyone under the age of 16, so can we. Most urgently, we must demand better accountability from the social media companies.
How is it possible that such a graphic stream was allowed to continue for a staggering 34 minutes? My iPhone can recognize my face in a fraction of a second, my bank can decline a suspicious transaction in real time, and I can start receiving targeted ads within minutes of Googling a product or service. Yet TikTok didn’t disable his livestream for more than half an hour? Unconscionable.
Protecting human empathy
The ultimate cost of desensitization is the resulting erosion of empathy. When we are no longer startled or disturbed, we are no longer capable of compassion. When trauma and violence become standard entertainment, human dignity decays. The psychological separation of seeing suffering on a screen dehumanizes the person in crisis.
As we’ve seen with Charlie Kirk and now with Perez Hilton, too many people are comfortable sharing footage of people’s personal tragedies while making jokes, passing judgment or even celebrating.
To anyone who intentionally views, shares, jokes about or passes judgment on tragic content, I suggest an exercise in empathy. Conjure up in your mind the worst thing you ever did; the moment that fills you with shame, regret and humiliation. Then imagine that it was filmed live and posted on the internet. Everyone you know sees it. Your children, your family, your friends, your colleagues. Beyond your inner circle, hundreds of thousands of strangers view it and make comments, memes and jokes. It will hang in the air, unspoken, on every job interview, at every family gathering and on every first date. Forever.
Imagine what that would be like and then decide if you really want to engage in trauma voyeurism. Everyone is more than the worst thing they ever did. To restore the dignity of the traumatized and preserve the innocence and mental health of our youth, we must each take the individual ownership and collective action necessary to eliminate exposure to this kind of tragedy.