“But it is hard not to notice that, in the aggregate, something poisonous is in the architecture of its platforms and the way that our technologies demand not just our attention, but our most heightened emotions,”
Charlie Warzel wrote in his piece here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/09/charlie-kirk-assassination-online-reaction/684201/?gift=bQgJMMVzeo8RHHcE1_KM0ZY_8qLLAueznc8lg3WkEto&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
undefined
Kai Kupferschmidt
@kakape@mas.to
Post
-
The New York Times has rarely felt as hopelessly out of its depth as in the past two days or so. -
The New York Times has rarely felt as hopelessly out of its depth as in the past two days or so.Here are some pieces and journalists I actually learnt something from: @justinling on Kirk’s position in the MAGA movement including this line:
“In the same way that his beliefs do not justify his murder, his murder can’t justify his beliefs either.”
https://www.bugeyedandshameless.com/p/who-was-charlie-kirk-anyway
-
The New York Times has rarely felt as hopelessly out of its depth as in the past two days or so.The New York Times has rarely felt as hopelessly out of its depth as in the past two days or so. There is still much I admire, many journalists I respect and trust, but on the Charlie Kirk assassination it simply hasn’t been very informative - not to mention some atrocious opinion “journalism”.