Questions TikTok won't answer after Fagersta school shooting

Questions linger over TikTok's response to a user linked to the Fagersta school shooting, who allegedly used the platform to glorify past mass murderers. The suspected perpetrator, Liam Nebel, is accused of maintaining a TikTok account for just over a month before the attack, during which he posted videos celebrating previous school attacks and terror acts, including Anders Behring Breivik's 2011 attacks in Norway.

Shortly before the Fagersta incident, the account posted an image of a sword with the caption "No more edits," interpreted as a sign that no more such videos would be published. The account was quickly linked to Nebel through hashtags and content that connected it to the "true crime community," a group known for glorifying school shooters and other violent offenders. The account was deactivated hours after the attack, but not before others had copied and shared its content.

Dagens Nyheter (DN) has repeatedly sought comment from TikTok representatives, including policy chiefs for Sweden and Nordic region, and the company's central press contact. The questions focused on whether the account's publications violated TikTok's community rules, why no action was taken if they did, if any posts were flagged for review, and where the platform draws the line for content about violent attacks. TikTok has not provided answers, instead issuing a statement through an unnamed press representative that the company does not comment on individual accounts and referring to its general guidelines on violent groups and "shocking and grossly offensive content."

This lack of direct response is not unprecedented. In a previous investigation by DN into the use of Swedish celebrities in far-right AI propaganda, TikTok failed to respond to contact attempts, though the account in question was eventually removed. In another instance, concerning AI-generated videos of individuals with Down syndrome used to sell merchandise, TikTok initially claimed to have acted against the accounts, but later admitted its moderation had approved the posts, which were only removed after press intervention. The platform's silence on the Fagersta case leaves unanswered questions about its content moderation policies and enforcement.