Two months after a tragic school shooting in Tacloban City claimed the lives of three students, the nation was once again shaken by a similar incident of violence. On the morning of August 18, a shooting occurred at the Ateneo de Zamboanga University, leaving two students dead, including the perpetrator, and approximately 20 others injured. This recurring pattern of violence has prompted The Nerve, a data forensics company, to analyze the online conversations and narratives that emerge in the aftermath of such tragedies. Their investigation reveals a disturbing trend: the rapid spread of disinformation and the shifting of blame, often targeting specific individuals or groups rather than addressing the systemic issues that contribute to these events.
Following the Tacloban shooting, The Nerve’s analysis found that bad actors online had quickly deflected blame onto the juvenile justice law. They propagated false arguments that the minors involved would not face any punishment and singled out Senator Kiko Pangilinan as the primary target, incorrectly labeling him as the author of the 20-year-old law. This tactic effectively muddled the public conversation, steering it away from constructive dialogue about gun control, school safety, and mental health. In the wake of the Zamboanga shooting, however, the bad actors on Facebook selected a different target, showcasing the adaptability of disinformation campaigns in response to different crises.
Using their content analysis tool, Probe, The Nerve identified a cluster of public Facebook posts that placed the blame on teachers. These posts contained unfounded accusations that the shooter had been bullied and harassed by his teachers, with some even tagging a teacher as a supposed member of the LGBT community. This narrative was disseminated across at least 40 posts, despite the fact that Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla had reported that their investigations found no evidence of bullying that may have triggered the shooter. Instead, Remulla pointed to the shooter’s involvement in video games, specifically mentioning the platform Roblox, and called on Congress to implement measures to “control and curb the use of first-person shooter games.”
This reaction from the Interior Secretary exemplifies a common yet flawed line of thinking that generalizes the causes of violent crimes committed by minors. It conveniently ignores the complex web of factors that contribute to such acts and focuses on a single, easily targeted element like video game content. This perspective is challenged by studies that indicate a low correlation between exposure to violent video games and actual shooting incidents. Don Kevin Hapal, Chief Data Officer at The Nerve, argues in an opinion piece that the social features of online gaming platforms pose a far more worrying problem than the perceived violence within the games themselves. He contends that relying solely on parental vigilance is insufficient because the fundamental issue lies in the very design of these platforms.
The real danger, according to Hapal, is not the violent gameplay but the monetized and unguarded social environment that is built into and around these platforms, which are specifically designed to cater to children. Research shows no strong link between violent video games and criminal behavior. A more effective approach to addressing the problem would be to concentrate on the unmoderated social layers of these platforms, such as their messaging features, the tendency for conversations to be funneled into other messaging apps, and the inadequacy of current parental controls. The problem is that responsibility is often placed on parents, who are expected to monitor and navigate a digital landscape that is deliberately engineered to be addictive and opaque, even as online platforms fail to be proactive in protecting their young users.
This lack of proactive safety measures from tech companies is further evidenced by the legal challenges they face. Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is being sued by 29 US states for designing its platforms to intentionally hook young users for profit. The states accuse Meta of violating federal law through the improper collection and use of personal data from users under 13 years old. Testimony from a former engineering director at Meta against the company revealed that it was “common knowledge” that most parents lack the time to fully understand the company’s products or monitor their children’s usage. The director disclosed that the company possessed the technology to identify potentially millions of underage users but chose to adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy because implementing safeguards for minors would not be profitable in the long run.
This prioritization of profit over safety is the root cause of the many problems plaguing the current online environment. It explains why false claims proliferate on social media after shooting incidents despite fact-checking efforts, why young users remain vulnerable to online aggression, and why parents find it nearly impossible to keep up with the ever-evolving tech products their children use. As long as online platforms are fundamentally designed to chase engagement and maximize profits, public safety and the well-being of users will perpetually take a back seat. The issue is not merely about individual parenting failures or the content of video games, but a systemic failure of platform design that encourages a race to the bottom, where sensationalism, disinformation, and exploitation are rewarded, and the safety of children is an afterthought.