Last week, a violent shooting shocked the world, starting with its point of origin, the United States. Two journalists were shot and killed during a live interview by a lone gunman. As the shooting took place live, it was shocking, but the real disturbing fact came later. The attacker posted videos of his shooting on social media, namely his Facebook and Twitter accounts. The journalists killed were Adam Ward and Allison Parker. Our thoughts and prayers are with their loved ones.

We have seen careful propaganda from terrorist organizations on social media before, but a shooting out of nowhere like this struck closer to home I believe. As expected, the video spread like wildfire, and even though the page of the attacker was closed down by Facebook and his account suspended by Twitter, the oldest rule of the Internet once again kicked in. Even though these two social media sites as well as YouTube try to shut down content, new uploads continue to pop up. Realistically, it is a losing battle, and the video will continue to exist on the Internet no matter what.

This brings us to another matter. Almost every person carries a cellphone with video-shooting capabilities and has social media sites to publish on. We have seen bullying and animal torture before. We have also seen that individuals have started to use social media as a place to vent -- even sharing their last words before committing suicide. Of course, a new medium with such potential is also became the favorite thing for spreading propaganda for terrorist organizations like the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), the PKK, etc. In fact this year, terrorists from the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party–Front (DHKP-C) took prosecutor Mehmet Selim Kiraz and killed him. While doing so, terrorists were using Twitter quite effectively to spread their propaganda and fulfill their primary mission: instill terror. During that time, Turkish officials were trying to get this content removed from Twitter and YouTube, but they encountered several delays, which caused a brief traffic block. After these sites removed the videos of the attack, they were opened again.

However, this removal request as well as the temporary blockade were fiercely criticized by several journalists as well as NGOs and categorized as censure. While many newspapers and news websites refrained from publishing and broadcasting these images and videos, several found their way onto the front pages of newspapers, thus acquiring their primary objective. Similarly, many also decided not to use videos taken by the killer, including Daily Sabah, and I congratulate them for it. Allowing this type of content to enter the pages of national and mainstream media and thus allowing it to reach the masses can only serve as an incentive for similar individuals to commit violent acts.

Social media sites may be afraid of censure accusations if they install systems to police this type of content. For example, Twitter policies point out that Twitter "does not mediate content." Along with Facebook, Twitter's policing largely depends on user reports. However, considering how fast a video gets marked with a copyright infringement if a song is used, a slow response to offensive and violent content leaves a lot to be desired.