Gore content and refigured ethics

Abstract

This article examines ‘Gore Content’—online photos and videos of wounded, mutilated and dead bodies—through the lens of a refigured ethics that emerges between modern moral order and postmodern ambivalence. Drawing on an ongoing digital ethnography, it traces how smartphone capture, platform architectures and algorithmic circulation have normalised the availability of lethal imagery while fragmenting moral authority across fields such as journalism, law, activism, and vernacular online publics. Building on Bauman’s account of postmodern ethics and sociological notions of refiguration, the article argues that contemporary moral evaluations of gore oscillate between two tendencies: a politics of visibility that mobilises violent images as evidence and critique and a normalisation of suffering that shifts spectatorship towards shock, provocation, or affective play. Case vignettes—from cartel execution videos and ‘Narco blogs’ to platform moderation workarounds and algorithmic misfires—show how ethical frames are no longer centrally imposed but situationally negotiated, producing unresolved tensions around authenticity, legitimacy and responsibility. The article thus reframes Gore Content as a privileged site to observe how moral logics are overlaid, contested, and pragmatically coordinated in networked media.

Introduction

Among the most controversial images of our time, those images that stir up emotions and cause different perspectives on social coexistence to collide, is ‘gore content’. As the word ‘gore’ suggests, this term refers to photographs and videos available online that contain bloody content, showing mutilated, disfigured and dead bodies that have often, but not always, been subjected to extreme violence (Seltzer, 1997). The contexts from which the images originate vary enormously: they include footage from war zones as well as images of traffic and workplace accidents, armed gang conflicts, police operations, surgical procedures, executions, torture situations and suicides.

In the following, I will focus on these images. For this purpose, I will use examples from my own field research. My considerations are based on an internet ethnographic (Dellwing, 2021) exploration of visualisations depicting lethal acts, which has been ongoing since 2020. Rather than relying on a closed or fixed corpus, this research draws on a continuously expanding body of openly accessible online material, including videos, photographs, reposts and the communicative exchanges surrounding them on websites, platforms, and discussion threads. The aim is therefore not to establish a numerically delimited dataset, but to reconstruct recurrent forms of presentation, circulation and commentary across different online settings.

I would like to note that gore content is by no means a clandestine phenomenon limited to the darknet. Instead, it is easily accessible and circulates in large quantities on the freely accessible internet—for example, on social media platforms, in chat groups, on international news portals, on websites documenting criminal activity and human rights violations, or on so-called ‘gore sites’ (Cottee, 2022), where these images are collected, exposed and discussed en masse. Accordingly, the material considered here was gathered on the ‘clearnet’, that is, on freely accessible websites, social media platforms, news portals, and forums. During the research process, it became apparent that relevant material could be located with relatively little effort by using keywords such as ‘gore’ or ‘death video’ in platform search functions and search engines. While the exploration covered a wider range of sites, particular analytical attention was paid to the website ‘Documenting Reality’ and ‘GoreCenter’, as well as the platforms ‘X’ (formerly ‘Twitter’) and ‘Reddit’.

Gore content, fragmented public sphere and the decline of central control

The fact that there is a lot of gore content in circulation today can be attributed, among other things, to the mass production of camcorders and smartphones, which make it easy to record lethal and violent acts on film and distribute them online (Collins, 2008: 3–7). While in the mid-20th century it was the exception rather than the rule for film cameras to be used in homicides, today smartphones are an everyday recording and distribution medium that is quickly at hand even in deadly situations. Social media and the development of the darknet also facilitate communication about violent material (Morse, 2020). While in the schoolyards of the 1980s, videotapes of the film Faces of Death (Alan Schwartz, USA 1978), in which documentary material of real deaths and animal slaughter was mixed with staged scenes, were still secretly distributed under the table (Kerekes and Slater, 1995), since the late 1990s, gore content has been distributed on a massive scale through websites such as rotten.com, bestgore.com and ogrish.com (Astley, 2016), which have since gone offline. And today, the structures of social media platforms make it possible to quickly distribute the recordings to those who have a thematic interest in them using hashtags and algorithms (Harju and Huhtamäki, 2023).

Society’s approach to images of deadly and violent acts is historically and culturally conditioned (Dwyer, 2017). While in pre-modern times Christian iconography was part of a religious meaning-making process and battle paintings were intended to testify to the glory and bravery of the rulers (Sontag, 2003), modernity saw the increasing tabooing and regulation of the depiction of violence. Based on universal moral principles, the church, state and mass media determined what was considered morally acceptable. The belief in rationality and progress went hand in hand with the fact that modernity was largely equated with non-violence (Reemtsma, 2012)—as a result of which images of real acts of violence were excluded from society or at least not accepted within it.

However, established standards are now being called into question. Traditional mass media—that is, press, radio and film—continue to follow ethical guidelines that often avoid explicit depictions of violence. In particular, respect for human dignity is emphasised in order to counteract the spread of degrading content. Some, but by no means all, social networks are also making efforts to exclude such content, for example through content moderation (Gillespie, 2018; Roberts, 2019). Nevertheless, gore content flows onto the platforms with far less filtering and sometimes even in real time—as illustrated by the case of Raphaël Graven, a French streamer better known online as Jean Pormanove (‘JP’). In August 2025, Graven became the centre of major controversy after a nearly 12-day livestream on the platform Kick, during which he was shown in an increasingly critical condition and was reported to have remained visibly unresponsive for some time before intervention occurred. What made the case particularly shocking was not only that his death unfolded in a livestreamed setting, but that the continuation of the broadcast exposed, in real time, the troubling nexus of spectatorship, platform permissiveness and delayed response.

This shows that the handling of such images no longer follows clear rules, but is subject to ambiguity and multiple interpretations (Chouliaraki, 2013). Currently, images from war zones are shared millions of times, and while some view visualisations of lethal acts as necessary documents of reality, others consume them with voyeuristic fascination (Alvarez, 2017; Tait, 2008). Reporting on the war in Ukraine shows that as the conflict drags on, the public is becoming increasingly desensitised. Violence is becoming commonplace in the mass media, while social networks serve as platforms for both information and propaganda. On platforms such as 8kun, Reddit, Kick and Telegram, morality is no longer imposed from above, but is negotiated among users. Although legal texts criminalise the dissemination of content depicting cruel acts of violence, they do not automatically determine what is considered morally acceptable within digital (sub)public spheres.

From modern to postmodern ethics

This change can now be understood, with Bauman (1993), as a shift from a ‘modern’ to a ‘postmodern ethic’. While modernity produced universal moral principles and clear social rules, postmodernity is characterised by uncertainty, ambivalence and plurality. The fact that divergent moral concepts clash here is demonstrated, for example, by the so-called ‘TikTok Intifada’, in which anti-Semitic and violence-glorifying content was disseminated on a massive scale. Since social media algorithms prioritise content that elicits strong emotional reactions, photos and videos of extreme violence spread more quickly in the wake of Hamas’ attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. People were exposed to a flood of images that they found highly problematic on the one hand, but promoted through their usage behaviour on the video portal on the other.

Bauman argues that postmodern ethics are characterised by uncertainty. This uncertainty results from the erosion of epistemic and moral authorities, whereby traditional sources of normative orientation lose their binding force. Whereas in modernity ethical responsibility was often delegated to institutions, individuals now face the challenge of making moral decisions independently—without being able to fall back on rules accepted by society as a whole (Bauman, 1993: 16–36).

This removal of boundaries can have ambivalent consequences: on the one hand, there is an increasing number of instances in which gore content is used as a means of critical visualisation, for example to document marginalised perspectives on violence, to draw attention to structural injustice or to bring repressed realities into the public sphere. In such cases, gore content functions as an intervention that allows previously censored or taboo moral concepts to be articulated. One example is the narco blogs, in which images of victims and scenes from the Mexican drug war circulate not only as evidence of extreme violence, but can also be understood as a counter-public sphere that questions state narratives, official media reports and hegemonic patterns of interpretation (Amaya, 2020). At the same time, however, new risks arise: the continued circulation of such images can also contribute to the normalisation of violence, promote voyeuristic forms of consumption, or be deliberately exploited by criminal actors to spread fear, demonstrate power, and secure social control (Hind, 2019).

On the other hand, where such reflexive references are absent, there is an increase in actions in which gore content is disseminated in an affect-oriented manner, consumed out of context or exploited for provocation (McKenna, 2023). The exposure of violent acts loses its ethical framework and is often detached from a specific context. A drastic example can be found in the dissemination of so-called ‘cartel videos’ from Mexico, which are also discussed on narco blogs and in which drug cartels deliberately film gruesome executions and publish them on relevant websites or messenger services (Cisneros Puebla, 2022). For many recipients, the focus is not on information or reflection, but on shock or even a macabre fascination. In online forums or comment sections, such videos are sometimes treated as ‘endurance tests’ designed to prove one’s own stamina.

Gore content and the refiguration of ethics

However, the modern approach to images of violence was not simply replaced by a postmodern one. The latter only gradually emerged during the transition to the 21st century and overlaid the moral order that had existed until then. With reference to Elias (1978: 104–133), such transitions can be understood as processes of social figurations in which existing patterns of power, perception and interpretation shift without being completely replaced. The simultaneity of contradictory moral orientations is thus—in the words of Löw and Knoblauch (2022: 22–24)—a symptom of a ‘refiguration of modernity’: modernity is not simply replaced by a new form of society, but is updated differently in different social spaces, media forms and contexts of action. This leads to a pluralisation of patterns of order in which both modern-normative and postmodern-fragmented interpretations coexist.

This coexistence of modern and postmodern orders gives rise to a tension in which a refigured ethic emerges. This is an ethic that no longer draws on a uniform moral centre that is closely linked to power relations, but rather emerges from the overlap, competition and situational negotiation of different moral orders—an ethic characterised by the simultaneous implementation of modern and postmodern moral logics. For example, in journalistic contexts, in state institutions or in courtrooms—precisely because they have been negotiated pluralistically—different ethical standards apply to the handling of gore content than in social networks, chat groups or on algorithmically controlled platforms such as TikTok or Telegram.

The coexistence of modern and postmodern ethics leads to irresolvable tensions and corresponding questions: Should platforms consistently delete violent videos or allow them in the interests of freedom of expression? Is it the state’s job to regulate access to such content, or is it the responsibility of the users? Should there be a general ban on violent videos, or should their distribution be allowed under certain circumstances—for example, to shed light on war crimes? Who decides whether a violent video is ‘authentic’ and also morally justified—can we rely on objective criteria, or must we acknowledge subjective perspectives? And do we need a uniform moral stance on how to deal with violent videos—or can different ethical assessments coexist on an equal footing?

These questions are answered very differently in today’s society. The morality of viewing violent images and videos depends on the context (Coenen, 2024): in court proceedings and police investigations, different assessments are made than in journalism (Zelizer, 2010), in academia or on gore sites (Khayambashi, 2021). Efforts to control violent content are sometimes counteracted by subversive actions. The example of so-called ‘Minion Gore’ shows that platforms are sometimes deliberately circumvented. Since the beginning of this year, some TikTok users have been using AI-powered video tools to edit footage of real acts of violence in such a way that the video platform classifies them as scenes from the animated Minions films (Pierre Coffin and Kyle Balda, USA 2015). This manipulated content gets thousands of views before it is discovered and removed. Algorithms and platform policies also sometimes conflict with moral decisions. In February 2025, a bug in Instagram’s algorithm led to users seeing more violent and disturbing content in their feeds, including videos of killings and animal abuse.

The refigured ethics therefore present societies with a challenge in dealing with controversial images: individuals are expected to take responsibility, even though there are no longer any fixed rules. Gore content can be both shocking and enlightening. Platforms find themselves caught between freedom of expression and regulation. Two trends can be observed: on the one hand, a policy of visibility, in which images of violent acts are published in order to denounce crimes against humanity (Linfield, 2010) and on the other hand, a normalisation of the depiction of suffering (Butler, 2009; Sontag, 2003). However, these two processes are so closely linked that they undermine each other. Perceiving suffering as normal defuses the discursive effect of the flood of images of violent acts (Chouliaraki, 2010), whereas the continuous scandalisation of killing counteracts the normalisation of suffering. All in all, the handling of gore content is indecisive. The images are increasingly treated in ambiguous and different ways. This ambivalence is an expression of a world in which moral decisions are no longer authoritatively dictated by institutions, but are instead negotiated in situated ways by users, platforms and online publics.