The families of the victims of the Buffalo mass shooting have filed a lawsuit against 4Chan, Good Smile, and other companies. These include Good Smile Company and 4chan. The defendants in the lawsuit also include Meta (formerly Facebook), Amazon, Twitch, Google, YouTube, Alphabet, Reddit, Snapchat, Discord, Vintage Firearms (a gun dealer), RMA Armament (a body armor manufacturer), and the parents of the shooter.
The primary focus of the lawsuit is on the social media companies where the shooter was exposed to extremist ideologies. He noted such theories as the “great replacement theory,” where algorithms recommended content that reinforced these beliefs. Additionally, the lawsuit targets platforms where Gendron purportedly shared and discussed his plans, live-streamed the attack, and interacted with like-minded individuals. These same individuals allegedly encouraged his actions, such as 4chan.
Good Smile and 4Chan: Possible Breeding Grounds for Prejudice
In March, WIRED reported that Good Smile Company had invested $2.4 million in 4chan back in 2015. Here, it acquired a 30% share of the website’s finances. This investment took place during the sale of 4chan to Hiroyuki Nishimura, the founder of 2channel. As part of the investigation into 4chan’s potential involvement in inciting the Buffalo shooting, the New York Attorney General’s office had requested the contract between Good Smile Company and 4chan.
Good Smile Company, known for its popular Nendoroid and Figma figure lines, responded to WIRED’s inquiries in April. The company stated that it had no partnership with 4chan. They also said they had never exerted any influence over the management or control of the platform. It further clarified that any previous limited relationship with 4chan had been terminated in June 2022. Since then, no association with 4chan had existed. Good Smile Company has not provided any additional comments, citing confidentiality obligations.
As this lawsuit unfolds against 4Chan, Good Smile Company and other, it will be crucial to closely monitor the responses from the companies involved. The families of the victims seek accountability and justice for the devastating loss they have suffered. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the responsibilities and liabilities of social media platforms in relation to extremist content. It remains to be seen how Good Smile Company, along with the other defendants, will respond to the allegations. It will also question what implications surrounding online safety, content moderation, and the potential influence of digital platforms on real-world events.
