Stochastic Terrorism Through Social Media: Can Litigation Fight It?

On May 14th, 2022, a gunman shot thirteen people in a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, killing ten. Eleven victims were Black [1]. The gunman, Payton Gendron, was radicalized online leading up to the shooting [2]. Gendron claims that the far-right content he encountered in online platforms like Reddit and 4Chan led him to develop a white supremacist ideology, which contributed to his decision to commit a mass shooting targeting Black Americans [3]. The Buffalo shooting has not been the only act of violence inspired by online content. In 2015, another shooting in South Carolina targeted Black Americans, and the gunman, Dylann Roof, also experienced online far-right radicalization before committing the racially-motivated mass shooting [4].

Currently, online radicalization presents a major challenge. It can be a vehicle for a form of violence known as “stochastic terrorism.” Stochastic terrorism describes a statistically predictable act of political or racial violence inspired by false, demonizing speech promoted through a form of mass media [5]. Although the “stochastic terrorist” is usually characterized as the person who posts inflammatory speech or writing with the expectation that violence will occur, it may be worth reconceptualizing the concept to account for the role that media plays in giving harmful and incendiary content a platform. This is especially relevant for social media, where nearly anyone can post and promote their views, sometimes regardless of how extreme or hateful they are—platforms like 4Chan and Reddit have even been cited in the manifestos of various mass shooters, and Gendron attributes his radicalization to them [6].

Alongside a growing trend of litigation targeting social media companies—including the recent lawsuits against several different platforms for their alleged addictiveness—legal scholars have considered the possibility of holding companies that allow the spread of hateful ideas liable for violence sparked by social media [7]. Recently, a judge greenlit the pursuit of a civil claim against Reddit and YouTube by the victims and witnesses of the Buffalo shooting [8]. Although Reddit and YouTube argue that they could not be held liable under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the First Amendment, the judge highlighted a legally allowable course of action available to the plaintiffs. They could pursue a negligence-based claim by reconceptualizing social media as a product and demonstrating that Reddit and YouTube owed them a duty of care—which entails a level of protection against potential harms caused by their products—that the platforms breached. In terms of the Buffalo lawsuit, the plaintiffs intend to prove that these social media sites addict and radicalize their users by design, which they believe led Gendron to the online materials that motivated his actions. This article evaluates the feasibility of the negligence-based claim that plaintiffs can take in lawsuits against social media platforms for their roles in perpetuating politically-inspired violence, first through the lens of the Buffalo shooting, then by examining what similar lawsuits could look like, and finally by considering potential consequences.

First Amendment Challenge

        In an attempt to dismiss the lawsuit brought on by the victims and witnesses of the Buffalo shooting, Reddit and YouTube appealed to the First Amendment of the Constitution and Section 230. The First Amendment protects numerous rights, including freedom of speech [9]. Since the conception of the First Amendment, there has been discourse about what free speech means. The Supreme Court has decided several notable cases regarding what constitutes speech protected by the Constitution. 

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court heard arguments about the legality of certain corporate activities. Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, wanted to release a movie criticizing the 2008 Presidential Candidate, Hilary Clinton [10]. However, the Federal Election Commission denied them the opportunity, claiming that the movie violated the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, a law passed by Congress that included a clause restricting the extent to which corporations can be involved in political campaigning. The Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, the plaintiff. The Court ruled that political messaging is vital to free speech, which cannot be taken away from corporations [11]. As a result, the Supreme Court established the concept of corporate personhood. Through corporate personhood, corporations have rights protected by the Constitution, like individuals.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) poses a challenge for civil claims against social media companies. Under corporate personhood, corporations have a protected right to free speech due to the First Amendment [12]. In their lawsuit against Reddit and YouTube, the victims and witnesses of the Buffalo shooting intend to demonstrate that these platforms are designed to addict and radicalize their users; in doing so, they will likely include discussion of the algorithms that are believed to contribute to users’ addictions [13]. Whether algorithms constitute free speech has been left ambiguous by the law. If algorithms are determined to be protected speech, then arguments for holding social media companies liable for designing harmful products may be weakened.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) about whether speech advocating for crime is constitutionally protected [14]. A Ku Klux Klan leader gave a speech that led to his arrest on the grounds of violating an Ohio law that criminalized the encouragement of violence for political reform [15]. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that the Ohio law was unconstitutional—speech is protected unless it aims to inspire criminal activity that is “imminent,” or likely to occur.

If those looking to hold social media companies responsible for violent acts inspired by online content can prove that social media companies intentionally radicalize their users while knowing that violence could result from this radicalization, then they may be able to circumvent the First Amendment protections that companies have. Violence inspired by hateful and radical content is a form of criminal activity that can—in some cases—be considered imminent. Because the plaintiffs in the Buffalo shooting lawsuit intend to take this approach, they circumvent First Amendment challenges to their claims against the social media companies.

Section 230 Challenge

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act significantly contributes to the legal discourse over whether social media companies can and should be held liable for acts of stochastic terrorism that their platforms inspire. Section 230 shields online service providers from being held responsible for any third-party content, which is information or content that is posted or promoted by their users [16]. However, it does not protect providers from any content that they create themselves [17].

Section 230 prevents plaintiffs from attempting to hold social media companies liable for content shared by users on their platforms. Social media content posted by individual users is considered third-party content. Thus, companies cannot be held liable for a user’s harmful or threatening posts; the user is a third party whose actions are legally distinct from the companies’ actions. 

The Buffalo shooting lawsuit avoids being hindered by Section 230 protections. By viewing social media platforms as products sold to consumers instead of focusing on the platform’s content, the lawsuit circumvents potential dismissals under the Communications Decency Act. In their attempt to dismiss the lawsuit against them, Reddit and YouTube appealed to Section 230 [18]. However, the judge ruled that arguments for a defective product fall outside Section 230 protections, thereby giving the lawsuit’s plaintiffs legal standing to sue unhindered by the Communications Decency Act [19]. 

Going forward, any future attempts to hold social media companies legally responsible for acts of violence inspired by online content would have to take a similar approach to the Buffalo shooting lawsuit by avoiding any arguments that would fall under Section 230 protections. Any focus on specific content would be protected, and thus would not give plaintiffs legal standing for civil claims against these social media companies.

Negligence

A negligence claim allows plaintiffs to avoid the major First Amendment and Section 230 challenges by instead reconceptualizing social media as a harmful or defective product. Legally, negligence occurs when a company owes victims a “duty of care” but fails to meet that duty [20]. The company’s failure must have caused “legally recognizable injuries” [21]. A duty of care exists when there is a “foreseeable” risk of harm to others [22]. 

Negligence could be proven in two ways concerning social media companies. Returning to the idea of stochastic terrorism, it is, by definition, statistically predictable [23], meaning that it is foreseeable. The legal question here is whether “statistically predictable” is a sufficient likelihood to require companies to act against harmful or threatening content and hold them liable if they do not. Once the duty of care is established, the remaining requirements to prove negligence can be examined. If social media companies do have a legal duty to prevent harm from occurring due to their users’ posts, then allowing largely unrestricted forums and discussions that spread hate, hope for violence, and dehumanize protected classes could constitute a violation of their duty of care.

This approach to proving negligence must show that social media companies’ failure to prevent harm is what caused the violent and harmful acts to occur. If a violent extremist was radicalized online, the role of social media may have played a part in his decision to commit a hate crime, but other factors may have been involved. For example, someone’s mental state or access to weapons may influence their decision to harm others. It is difficult to establish a direct link to social media, especially since a person may encounter many other channels of socialization that can radicalize them or encourage violence [24]. However, once causation has been established, the only thing left to prove is that damages or injuries occurred. In the case of hate crimes and mass shootings, the loss of mental security, physical health, and life is a harm that constitutes the damages that follow from negligence. Once these aspects have been proven, social media companies may be held liable for negligence. 

The plaintiffs in the Buffalo shooting lawsuit could try to demonstrate that Reddit and YouTube were negligent by claiming that these companies should have expected violence to occur due to the extent of unrestricted violent and politically radical content on their sites and taken action to mitigate it. In this case, it would be fairly easy to show that Reddit and YouTube heavily contributed to Gendron’s decision to take the lives of eleven civilians. Gendron himself cites the “Great Replacement Theory,” which is an idea frequently shared online in right-wing spaces that claims minorities are attempting to “undermine” the white population [25]. This theory has permeated many social media platforms, with several prominent right-wing figures sharing posts that allude to it. Thus, it is feasible that these sites more likely than not developed Gendron’s awareness of the theory.

Algorithms

Another possible approach to holding social media companies accountable for their role in inspiring acts of violence is to position their design as an inherent violation of the duty of care owed to their users. This method includes the claims that social media is designed to be addictive, and it purposefully pushes radical and potentially harmful ideas to users. Algorithms would play a large role in this approach to holding social media companies liable for acts of violence inspired by content on their sites.

Social media algorithms have been a hot topic recently; they may play a large role in the arguments in favor of holding social media companies accountable for the violence characteristic of stochastic terrorism that results from their platforms. Currently, many social media sites employ algorithms in their operations. Algorithms determine what to show social media users based on their behavior and their interests [26]. They primarily aim to keep their users “engaged” and can influence the content users see in their social media feeds. Companies largely have their own algorithms tailored to their specific social media sites, so their exact processes are often left ambiguous [27]. However, in aiming to keep users engaged, some social media sites are alleged to have purposefully designed their algorithms to get their users addicted and potentially push radicalizing content towards them, like TikTok. 

The defective product approach seems to be the path of recourse that the plaintiffs intend to take in the Buffalo shooting lawsuit [28]. The crux of the plaintiffs’ argument for Reddit and YouTube’s liability in the Buffalo shooting lies in the claim that Reddit and YouTube purposefully keep their users addicted and also purposefully push radical content toward their users. If they can prove that Reddit and YouTube are products and that they were intentionally designed to cause harm, then their lawsuit will likely succeed. However, Reddit and YouTube can counter their claims by showing that their services are not products or that they do not use algorithms to push harmful and addictive content, which would undermine the lawsuit’s claims [29].

Potential Consequences

        If the Buffalo lawsuit were successful, it would open the door to many other lawsuits related to violence stemming from the content present on social media. This could certainly result in several positives. For example, it would incentivize the restriction of violent and threatening content on social media without eliminating companies’ free speech protections. Victims of stochastic terrorism would have a way to seek redress civilly against the social media companies that they believe have a level of responsibility for the harm they encountered. 

However, it could also lead to several negative consequences. A reduction in free speech online is among the most salient of potential negative consequences. One way to demonstrate negligence is to show that certain social media companies are designed to push radical content. Who decides what radical content is? What is considered “radical” often depends on what is and is not considered politically acceptable at a given time. This is especially relevant given the current political concerns that the United States is facing. For example, the Department of Homeland Security has previously requested that several companies—including Reddit—provide the data of online accounts that criticize U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) [30]. This request was partially motivated by concerns for the safety of ICE officers [31]. If efforts to hold social media companies responsible for violence inspired by online content are successful, then this could provide the framework for the DHS to pressure social media sites into moderating any kind of content that includes criticisms of ICE. For many Americans, this outcome would not be regarded positively.

        In conclusion, the United States’s comprehensive free speech protections weaken attempts to hold social media companies responsible for their role in promoting acts of violence online characteristic of stochastic terrorism. However, those bringing complaints against social media companies can make claims regarding harm resulting from negligence to get around these free speech protections. 

Several viable pathways to impose liability on these companies exist. First, plaintiffs could attempt to demonstrate that social media companies’ failure to mitigate posts that would result in statistically predictable acts of violence caused harm. Second, plaintiffs bringing lawsuits against social media companies could attempt to prove that they and their algorithms intentionally make their users addicted and radicalized. 

In the Buffalo shooting lawsuit, the victims and witnesses intend to argue using the second approach—that Reddit and YouTube are defectively and harmfully designed. In an age when social media has become increasingly prevalent, action should be taken to address any harm inspired by online content. The success of another prominent lawsuit regarding social media platforms’ harmful designs sends a hopeful sign for the outcome of the Buffalo lawsuit. 

In March 2026, a jury found Meta and YouTube responsible for harming the mental health of the plaintiff, who had used these platforms as a minor, through the addictive nature of their algorithms and core features [32]. Legal experts consider the lawsuit to be a bellwether case, meaning its results may influence the outcome of similar cases and predict whether others are pursued [33]. While the Meta and YouTube lawsuit suggests the Buffalo plaintiffs may be able to successfully prove that social media platforms have harmful designs, they would have to take it a step further and demonstrate that this harm drove Gendron to commit the Buffalo shooting, which led to the harm that the plaintiffs suffered.

The victims of harm caused by social media platforms deserve redress. The bellwether case opens the door to future cases surrounding harm for social media and suggests that social media companies may be increasingly held liable for their harmful practices. Serving as an instrument for stochastic terrorism—like how the Buffalo shooting lawsuit may portray YouTube and Google—should also come with consequences. However, we must remain vigilant in ensuring that any future social media lawsuits will not devolve into a loss of free speech protections.  

[1] Stanley, Jason. “Buffalo Shooting: How White Replacement Theory Keeps Inspiring Mass Murder.” The Guardian, May 15, 2022.

[2] “Online Radicalisation Led a White Supremacist to Target African-Americans.” The Economist, May 19, 2022.

[3] “Buffalo Shooting Online Platform Investigative Report,” 3.

[4] “Online Radicalisation Led a White Supremacist to Target African-Americans.” The Economist, May 19, 2022.

[5] Angove, James. 2024. “Stochastic Terrorism: Critical Reflections on an Emerging Concept,” Critical Studies on Terrorism, 22, 25.

[6] Glaser, April. “8chan Is a Normal Part of Mass Shootings Now.” Slate Magazine, August 4, 2019. 

[7] “Lawsuits Now Being Filed over Social Media Addiction.” ClassAction.Org, March 19, 2026.

[8] Reuters. “Judge Rules Reddit and YouTube Must Face Lawsuits Claiming They Enabled Buffalo Grocery Mass Shooter.” NBC News, March 18, 2024. 

[9] U.S. Constitution, amend. 1.

[10] “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.” Oyez.

[11] ibid.

[12] Winkler, Adam. Corporate Personhood and the Rights of Corporate Speech, 30 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 863 (2007).

[13] Bergman, Matthew. “Social Media Addiction Lawsuit.” Social Media Victims Law Center, March 30, 2026.

[14] “Brandenburg v. Ohio.” Oyez.

[15] ibid.

[16] Congress.gov. "Section 230: An Overview." April 20, 2026.

[17] ibid.

[18] id at 8

[19] ibid.

[20] “Business Law.” Lumen.

[21] ibid.

[22] id at 20.

[23] id at 5.

[24] McCauley, Clark, and Sophia Moskalenko. 2008. “Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism.” Terrorism and Political Violence, 415–33.

[25] Frosch, Dan, Cameron McWhirter, Jimmy Vielkind, and Georgia Wells. “Buffalo Shooter’s 673-Page Diary Reveals Descent Into Racist Extremism.” Washington Street Journal, May 17, 2022. 

[26] Draper, Danielle. “Demystifying Social Media Algorithms.” Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2, 2023.

[27] id at 8.

[28] id at 8.

[29] WAYNE JONES, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of CELESTINE CHANEY v. MEAN LLC; VINTAGE FIREARMS, LLC; RMA ARMAMENT, INC.; ALPHABET INC., GOOGLE, LLC, YOUTUBE, LLC,; REDDIT, INC.; PAUL GENDRON; and PAMELA GENDRON (NYSCEF DOC. NO. 115 March 18, 2024). 

[30] Frenkel, Sheera, and Mike Isaac. “Homeland Security Demands Social Media Sites Reveal Names behind Anti-Ice Posts - The New York Times.” New York Times, February 13, 2026.

[31] Lonsdorf, Kat. “‘We Can Get to You Whenever We Want to’: People Say Ice Is Surveilling Them.” NPR, March 8, 2026.

[32] Huamani, Kaitlyn, and Barbara Ortutay. “Instagram and YouTube Found Liable in Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial in California.” PBS, March 25, 2026. 

[33] ibid. 

Works Cited

Angove, James. 2024. “Stochastic Terrorism: Critical Reflections on an Emerging Concept.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 17 (1): 21–43. doi:10.1080/17539153.2024.2305742.

Bergman, Matthew. “Social Media Addiction Lawsuit.” Social Media Victims Law Center, March 30, 2026. https://socialmediavictims.org/social-media-lawsuits/. 

“Brandenburg v. Ohio.” Oyez. Accessed April 6, 2026. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492.

Buffalo Shooting Online Platform Investigative Report, October 18, 2022. https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/buffaloshooting-onlineplatformsreport.pdf. 

“Business Law.” Lumen. Accessed April 21, 2026. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/montgomerycollege-masterybusinesslaw2/chapter/negligence-in-business/. 

“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.” Oyez. Accessed April 6, 2026. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205.

Congress.gov. "Section 230: An Overview." April 20, 2026. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46751.

Draper, Danielle. “Demystifying Social Media Algorithms.” Bipartisan Policy Center, August 2, 2023. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/demystifying-social-media-algorithms/. 

Frenkel, Sheera, and Mike Isaac. “Homeland Security Demands Social Media Sites Reveal Names behind Anti-Ice Posts - The New York Times.” New York Times, February 13, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/technology/dhs-anti-ice-social-media.html. 

Glaser, April. “8chan Is a Normal Part of Mass Shootings Now.” Slate Magazine, August 4, 2019. https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/el-paso-8chan-4chan-mass-shootings-manifesto.html. 

Huamani, Kaitlyn, and Barbara Ortutay. “Instagram and YouTube Found Liable in Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial in California.” PBS, March 25, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/instagram-and-youtube-found-liable-in-landmark-social-media-addiction-trial-in-california. 

“Lawsuits Now Being Filed over Social Media Addiction.” ClassAction.Org, March 19, 2026. https://www.classaction.org/newsletter/issue-383. 

Lonsdorf, Kat. “‘We Can Get to You Whenever We Want to’: People Say Ice Is Surveilling Them.” NPR, March 8, 2026. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/08/nx-s1-5739225/we-can-get-to-you-whenever-we-want-to-immigrants-say-ice-is-surveilling-them. 

McCauley, Clark, and Sophia Moskalenko. 2008. “Mechanisms of Political Radicalization: Pathways Toward Terrorism.” Terrorism and Political Violence 20 (3): 415–33. doi:10.1080/09546550802073367. 

“Online Radicalisation Led a White Supremacist to Target African-Americans.” The Economist, May 19, 2022. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/05/19/online-radicalisation-led-a-white-supremacist-to-target-african-americans. 

Reuters. “Judge Rules Reddit and YouTube Must Face Lawsuits Claiming They Enabled Buffalo Grocery Mass Shooter.” NBC News, March 18, 2024. 

Stanley, Jason. “Buffalo Shooting: How White Replacement Theory Keeps Inspiring Mass Murder | Jason Stanley.” The Guardian, May 15, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/15/buffalo-shooting-white-replacement-theory-inspires-mass. 

U.S. Constitution, amend. 1.

WAYNE JONES, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of CELESTINE CHANEY v. MEAN LLC; VINTAGE FIREARMS, LLC; RMA ARMAMENT, INC.; ALPHABET INC., GOOGLE, LLC, YOUTUBE, LLC,; REDDIT, INC.; PAUL GENDRON; and PAMELA GENDRON (NYSCEF DOC. NO. 115 March 18, 2024).

Winkler, Adam. Corporate Personhood and the Rights of Corporate Speech, 30 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 863 (2007).