Mainstream Media Already Blaming Internet, Video Games for Montreal Shooting

Mainstream media is already taking advantage of real world tragedy to push their anti-tech agenda. Video games are being blamed.

If there is one thing that quickly pisses me off, it’s the mainstream media and politicians taking advantage of tragedy to push a political agenda. In this case, it is the mainstream media capitalizing on people’s death to push a political agenda. It’s absolutely disgusting when this happens and this example is no exception.

Yesterday (yes, it took a mere 24 hours before they started blaming technology), there was deadly shooting. A civilian, a police officer, and the shooter were all killed in the incident. People have been identified in this incident. The shooter was from Alberta. Here’s the other two people that were identified according to CTV:

The coroner has also confirmed the identities of the other two people who were killed: 34-year-old Montreal police (SPVM) officer Mohamed Lamine Benredouane, of Laval, and Michel Mizrahi, 68, of Montreal, who was an innocent bystander.

The events were tragic and the violence was rightfully condemned. There is no place in society for violence like this.

While investigators are currently piecing together what actually happened, it seems that the mainstream media wasn’t exactly waiting around for the actual results. They are quickly getting to work trying to blame technology for this whole thing. In a CBC interview with Toronto Star columnist, Justin Ling, Ling argued that this whole thing is all the fault of the internet and that video games are also to blame. You can watch the video on YouTube or in the embed below:

The interview starts off reasonable enough. They talk about the hidden websites that fosters violence and hate. The spaces are not part of major platforms which is an important point to be making (much more than the media likely believed). Where the interview falls off the rails is around 3:16 where the host asks what is driving people to join these radical and violent communities. It’s a complicated question with no easy answer, but for Ling, the answer was simple: blame the internet. It’s internet addiction causing the violence.

Now, it goes without saying that this is a completely bullshit response. Scientific research has repeatedly debunked this myth of “internet addiction” and whatever “negative impacts” that have been dreamed up by the mainstream media. Could it be that people have been radicalized by political influences? Could economic issues be a driving force? What about access to mental health services? There’s a lot of ways you can address this that would make some sense, but just blanket blaming the internet and “internet addiction” is obviously a lie.

Moreover, it is actually a logical leap to go from ‘there are spaces on the internet that are radicalizing people’ to ‘the internet as a whole is at fault for this’. Most online communities frown on any semblance of radicalization. Anything that encourages violence very frequently gets reported and removed (X/Twitter is probably one of the only major outliers of this). This is something that just doesn’t enter into conversations like the one in the CBC interview. The CBC has an anti-technology agenda and that would undermine their anti-technology propaganda.

Of course, the lies didn’t end there in the interview. Ling goes on to talk about how marginalized people find communities and this turns into a “vortex” of hate and radicalization. This, of course, is an extremely misleading statement to make because that is not how the internet at large works. People do find communities and a majority of them are actually quite positive. When local communities marginalize people – whether that is for being politically different from their peers, for being a member of the LGBTQ+ community, for enjoying video games, or whatever other reason – those people seek companionship online when the physical community simply doesn’t offer that safe haven. Many of these communities are quite supportive in saying “yes, it’s OK to be who you are” or “no, the entire world is not out to get you” among other things. To suggest that the internet as a whole solely radicalized people into violence for being different is simply wrong. As Ling himself admitted, the groups that actually radicalize people are in communities outside of the major platforms. There is a reason for that: the larger communities didn’t tolerate their presence and made it clear that encouraging violence is not acceptable. These are the only spaces that they can find to foment hate and those spaces are, mercifully, hard to find.

Ling then goes on to admit that a lot of people who end up joining these hidden groups online are often bullied, harassed, and marginalized in a multitude of ways. This is an admission to a wider societal problem going on in these peoples lives. That is something that clearly needs to be addressed. For that, I fall back on the usual questions: do these people know about mental health services? Are there people they can talk to? Are they under financial hardship? If these people are being bullied, then what is being done to address the bullying in that environment? Are they reporting the bullying and harassment? If so, what are those in higher power such as management doing about it? Are they trying to address the bullying or are they letting it continue on? Is it the management itself that is actually doing the bullying and harassment? Obviously, this is going to be a case-by-case basis, but there are a whole host of questions you could be asking about what is going on in their lives that has nothing to do with the internet.

For Ling, however, none of the obvious underlying issues factors into his comments because societal issues would undermine the propaganda that the internet is to blame for everything and that misery is an addiction along with the internet. Ling then makes that logical leap that the entire internet is to blame to talking about counselling violence and encouraging hate towards others. That is problematic and should be condemned, but to suggest that this is reflective of the entire internet is very disingenuous.

The host then asks Ling about potential solutions to all of this and, unsurprisingly, Ling didn’t have any solutions that would address any of this. Instead, Ling said that the Online Safety legislation is being pursued and he calls it ‘relatively well tailored’. This, to me, is a dead giveaway that Ling has no idea what is actually in the bill itself. If Ling actually read and analyzed the bill like we did, he would know that the bill is so full of placeholders that the legislation doesn’t even know who it is regulating. Even if you ignore the fact that everything is a placeholder. Even if that wasn’t a problem, Section 6, as I noted a second time goes by user count and is likely to target the larger platforms. By Lings own admission, the sites that he is looking at would go completely unaffected. Even if the legislation did target these sites, those sites wouldn’t bother following such legislation. As Ling admits, no one knows who runs some of these sites in the first place. Let’s be really clear: Bill C-34 would do nothing to address these websites. What it would do is rip apart the more positive and moderated communities on larger platforms and potentially push those users to those more violent spaces. So, if anything, Bill C-34 would make matters worse. Nothing about this strikes me as ‘relatively well tailored’. If anything, he should be outraged by what Bill C-34 does. Instead, Ling is just plain clueless as to what Bill C-34 does and just assumes that it does the right thing. I know, a mainstream media journalist actually doing their homework? Perish the thought!

Ling then said that the government is trying to give police ‘more tools for investigations’ and he said that this probably couldn’t hurt either. This is likely in reference to Bill C-22. Again, had he actually taken the time to understand what this legislation actually does, then he would be condemning that bill as well. This is because it would turn major platforms into surveillance tools for police regardless of whether or not you would be suspected of committing or being about to commit a crime. It would also break encryption as well, making it easier for victims of harassment to be, well, bullied and harassed. Of course, he’s a mainstream media journalist, so actually researching things like this is on the bottom of his priority list. Much like Bill C-34, Bill C-22 would do exactly squat for the sites that Ling is so concerned about. They are not going to abide by those laws because they aren’t likely based out of Canada in the first place. If police approaches these sites and demands information, the owners of those, at most, is going to tell them to fuck off. So, again, this is just Ling being a dumbass.

Ling does have one brief moment of clarity where he says that the main thing is reaching out to those people. That clarity evaporated completely when he then said that these people should “log off” the internet completely. Again, that is attempting to treat symptoms, not the cause.

Ling then says that this all the affects of internet addiction and pornography addiction. I’ve already addressed why “internet addiction” is a myth, but “pornography addiction” is also a myth. As I noted back in January, scientists studying areas of sexual health have long concluded that “pornography addiction” doesn’t actually exist. What has long been concluded was that people who say they have problematic use are those who are being told they have problematic use. The biggest reason why people feel they have become addiction is because society is shaming them about it – whether it is personal reasons or religious reasons. The best you can hope for is to find rare edge cases and even when you do find those rare edge cases, there are underlying reasons for what is happening, not that the person found pornography and has become addicted to it.

Ling argued that the shooter targeted a Pornhub location. That is probably one of the worst arguments I’ve ever heard for the existence of the mythical “pornography addiction”. It’s kind of like saying that if an active shooter is going after a school, then that active shooter must’ve been addicted to schools. No sane person who is serious is going around and saying that and it is equally farcical to say that if the shooter was going after Pornhub, then he was addicted to pornography.

The fact that Ling argued that the target of Pornhub is a relevant piece of information towards the argument of “pornography addiction” really speaks to just how much he is clearly bullshitting people.

Ling then argued that we need to get people off of addictive video games and addictive online spaces and off of the addiction of feeling miserable. It’s unbelievable that he actually went there especially when he is railing against right wing extremist ideology.

The myth that video games cause violence has been around since at least the early 90s. Probably the most famous early examples is the game Doom where the mainstream media kept trying to argue that violent video games causes violence. There was never any actual connection to be made, but the mainstream media kept insisting that violent video games causes violence regardless of what the evidence actually said. Other examples included Duke Nukem 3D where people said that it promoted pornography and murder. The mainstream media also tried blaming Call of Duty for a number of shootings. In one of the more recent examples, there was an attempt to blame The Elder Scrolls for the murder of Dianna Mah-Jones and Richard Jones by Rocky Rambo Wei Nam Kam. While the judge in that case didn’t buy the argument, the mainstream media didn’t question the obviously faulty claim.

Despite the many attempts to tie real world violence to violent video games, scientists have long dismissed the claims as bunk. In 2019, an Oxford University study found that there is no connection between video games an adolescent violence:

Researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, have found no relationship between aggressive behaviour in teenagers and the amount of time spent playing violent video games.

In 2020, the American Psychological Association (APA) reaffirmed that position:

There is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior, according to an updated resolution (PDF, 60KB)

APA’s governing Council of Representatives seated a task force to review its August 2015 resolution in light of many occasions in which members of the media or policymakers have cited that resolution as evidence that violent video games are the cause of violent behavior, including mass shootings.

“Violence is a complex social problem that likely stems from many factors that warrant attention from researchers, policymakers and the public,” said APA President Sandra L. Shullman, PhD. “Attributing violence to video gaming is not scientifically sound and draws attention away from other factors, such as a history of violence, which we know from the research is a major predictor of future violence.”

So, science has long closed the door on this. The only people making these arguments these days are the mainstream media and politicians trying to push a moral panic.

As for why it is deeply ironic that Ling is condemning violent right wing ideology while also blaming video games, well, mass shootings in the US have long been the subject of deflection from right wing politicians. There has long been very sound arguments for the connection between the mass availability of guns and violent shootings. The debate has gotten so stupid that people argue that even people with violent histories and mental health disorders should have access to weapons. So, in 2024 when there was an attempted assassination attempt on Trump, right wing media tried to deflect blame by blaming video games for it despite the complete lack of evidence supporting such an accusation. It was an obvious attempt at deflecting from some very real serious issues. What Ling did was follow along with the right wing playbook by arguing that video games are to blame for violence despite the lack of evidence supporting such an assertion.

Ling then argues that people need to get back into the real world because that is the only solution. This is another sign that Ling clearly has no idea what he is even talking about because this doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

First of all, ask yourself this: why are people online in the first place? Very often, it’s because the internet offers something the local community simply doesn’t provide.

So, I’ll use myself as an example. I enjoy video games and like talking about it. I actively searched high and low for a club or get together or just a general local community that is into gaming in general. That simply did not exist and I dug deep looking for something like that. The only place something like that exists, as far as my physical location is concerned, is through online communities that are decidedly not local. I tried the same thing with organizations that talk about technology and politics and the response is often as if I am coming from the moon.

In fact, when I speak to some people and mention that I do play video games, I’ve had them roll their eyes as if that was somehow socially intolerable. It’s as if to say, “you play video games??? That’s, like, the work of the devil! You clearly have problems if you are playing video games!”

It’s not just video games. There are people out there who honestly believe that not being straight means that you have a mental disorder. What’s more, there are overtly racist attitudes out there as well. People cast judgment on people based on the dumbest things and work to marginalize those individuals. Younger people in mismanaged school settings tend to be especially vulnerable. I remember being on one setting where I would get physically assaulted by fellow students for the simple reason that those students were bored and just felt like it. When I reported being physically attacked, I had teachers respond with, “You got beat up? That’s hilarious! Yeah, you probably deserved that.” So yes, I know from personal experience what it’s like to be in a badly run school setting (and that’s putting it lightly).

While I didn’t have social media, I can hardly blame people who have been marginalized by broader society to seek shelter in internet communities. Contrary to what Ling seems to suggest, finding like minded people when there is nowhere else to turn to is a good thing. People can find good support online that doesn’t lead to toxicity. The problem that needs to be addressed is what is marginalizing people in the first place. Society generally sucks when it comes to addressing problems like that. Just look at things like the Stonewall riots to get an idea of that in action.

The thing is, knowing people like Ling, the response to this is to argue that society doesn’t have problems. Everyone is happy offline and it’s all the internets fault for causing problems. If that’s the thinking of Ling, then Ling basically confirms that he has zero credibility on any of these issues. If you honestly believe that the internet is at fault for all of societal ills, then I have a bridge to sell you.

There is a modest amount of redemption when Ling does mention therapy and mental health supports which has been wildly underfunded. This is probably one of the few things that I would agree with Ling on. One example would be the Tumbler Ridge shooting. As I noted earlier, the grandparents of the shooter sought mental health services because they were concerned about what was happening with the person that would ultimately carry out the shooting. They were unsuccessful at getting that help which strongly suggests that there is something seriously wrong with the system. I’ve long argued that underfunding is a huge problem, but many people who talk about the Tumbler Ridge shooting rarely, if ever, mention these issues. Instead, they blame technology and dust their hands of it because, for some of them, that is the easy answer to everything. Blame technology, restrict technology, and pretend that all of the problems are solved. The reality is that this only makes matters worse rather than better.

That redemption of Ling was short lived because he argued that the mental help should be used to fight the loneliness by getting people to go outside. Ling is grossly oversimplifying this because the issue isn’t that people aren’t going outside, but rather, marginalized people are seeing what is outside. They are seeing the lack of opportunities to integrate into society. They are seeing the sky high housing costs. Further, they are seeing the bullying and harassment, toxic work environments, wage suppression, and zero hope for any kind of future with things like climate change that continues to go unaddressed. No matter how hard they work for a future, everything seems hopeless and the information they have at their fingertips only further allows people to reach those conclusions.

More broadly, this is the mainstream media echo chamber in action. The mainstream media loves to talk about how internet is filled with echo chambers and say that it’s leading to polarization, but the reality is that the mainstream media is guilty of creating their own anti-technology and anti-human rights echo chamber. They have radicalized themselves to the point of saying that free speech is a threat to society and that mass government censorship and surveillance are worthwhile causes. This interview is a prime example of this radicalization of the mainstream media. They do what they can to only bring in voices that they personally disagree with and try to marginalize those who have a different opinion on the matter.

Anyway, Ling is an idiot whole completely discredited himself in one interview. There’s so much wrong with his warped world view that it’s difficult to really simplify it into short counterpoints. The science disagrees with him quite strongly and, really, he’s just another person who gets the bully pulpit of the mainstream media to spread disinformation and misinformation. What he did here was quite despicable.

Drew Wilson on Mastodon, Bluesky and Facebook.