At 10:13 a.m. on September 12, Alexandra typed a Facebook post mocking the rhetoric of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. By 6:07 p.m., she was unemployed fired via email from her cybersecurity job after just two weeks on the clock. In between, a single screenshot of her post was shared by an anonymous X account with over 500,000 followers, tagged to Elon Musk’s orbit, and weaponized into a coordinated campaign that named her, exposed her employer, and flooded her workplace with demands for termination. “I knew the moment I saw it trending,” she said. “They weren’t coming for my opinion. They were coming for my livelihood.”
Alexandra’s post was a direct parody of Kirk himself. After the 2022 hammer attack on Paul Pelosi, Kirk had urged listeners to “bail out” the assailant to “ask him some questions.” Two days after Kirk’s assassination in Utah, Alexandra flipped the script: “If some amazing patriot out there in Utah wants to be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail out Tyler Robinson… and then go ask him some questions about Charlie.” She insists she mourned Kirk’s death like any victim of gun violence but rejected his elevation to martyrdom. “I don’t think we have to value the same things,” she said. “We just have to protect each other’s ability to say, though.”
Her post initially drew little attention fewer than 80 replies, under 100,000 views. But after she commented on a private Facebook thread criticizing “celebrations” of Kirk’s death, a former friend shared her post publicly with the caption: “I’m only leaving you for the wolves.” Within hours, right-wing accounts like Libs of TikTok were tagged. The dominant X account posted her full name and employer. Users boasted about contacting investors, leaving Google reviews, and bypassing HR entirely. One claimed: “Already submitted, currently going viral on Twitter.” Her employer’s internal review lasted 20 minutes before the termination email arrived. “It wasn’t about policy,” Alexandra said. “It was about fear of exposure.”
The fallout wasn’t confined to her job. A Facebook user posted: “How do you like the Italian restaurant across the street from your apartment?” a chilling signal that her address was known. She fled that night, sleeping in a friend’s child’s princess-themed room, then in Connecticut for days. “If they can come for me online, they can come for me in real life,” she said. Her family, Soviet émigrés who came to the U.S. for freedom, now watch her flinch at strangers on rooftops. She’s lowered her shades, archived her post, and gone private but the fear lingers. “Where does this stop?” she asked. “What if I’d held a protest sign?”
Alexandra is not alone. Between September 10 and 19, the same X account targeted at least 150 individuals for Kirk-related posts. Of the 13 outcomes it claimed, NPR verified 12: ten were fired, two were defended by employers. One staffer a mass shooting survivor was spared after posting a meme critiquing Kirk’s gun rights stance; others with similar trauma weren’t so lucky. Researchers note a disturbing shift: these campaigns no longer just shame they explicitly demand employment consequences. “Proportionality is out the window,” said Daniel Trottier, a digital culture scholar. “The goal isn’t dialogue. It’s destruction.”
Alexandra has stopped posting. She’s warned friends to scrub their profiles. She calls it “state-sponsored censorship by proxy” not through laws, but through political figures like Vice President Vance, who urged supporters to “call their employer” when someone “celebrates Charlie’s murder.” The result is a climate where speech is policed not by courts, but by viral outrage and corporate panic. “My family left tyranny so I could speak freely,” she said, staring out her window. Now I wonder if the price of saying something unpopular is losing everything including your sense of safety.
0 Comments