Your Cart is Empty
By Joseph Gonzalez ‘28
A discussion about Fizz and the role of social media in our discourse took place at Princeton University on December 3rd, 2025, hosted by the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC) and funded by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS), While the discussion has been lauded as an example of what can come about through open and civil exchange of ideas, several questions remain worth considering. What is the place of anonymous speech in our society? Should someone take responsibility for the things they say? Or has our public discourse been hollowed out by social media to the point where online commentary should be considered performative?
All this came to a head in the wake of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk’s assassination on a college campus in September, and the ensuing rush to comment from both sides of the political aisle. Princeton University students themselves turned to the social media app Fizz, a campus-only social network launched by Stanford students in 2021 that has become a staple of student life at Princeton. The app functions as a local message board where any student can post anything anonymously. Anonymity may sound ominous but the platform avoids the “bot” problem that plagues other social media platforms, as it is accessible only to those with an .edu email address. Even so, Fizz lit up with dozens of posts reacting to Kirk’s killing. Some users celebrated or made light of the incident, while others urged compassion and condemned political violence, revealing the bitter political divide among students in higher education, with conservative students feeling ever more isolated at an institution that tends to cater to a more left-wing audience.
Each panelist had published an article as a response to reactions on the Fizz app about Kirk’s murder. On the right side of the aisle were Zach Gardner ‘26, Max Meyer ‘27. The left side was represented by Isaac Barsoum ’28 and Christofer Robles ‘26. POCC and PFS deserve credit here because the panelists frequently brought up how unlikely it was for them all to be gathered in the same place. Zach started by noting that Fizz is great for poking fun at campus life and being humorous, but it was a net negative. Isaac agreed that in terms of political debate Fizz is pointless. He thought “the fact that you can say anything without consequence”, allows people to say things that they may not necessarily mean, and that maybe it was time to “reconceptualize what Fizz means.” Christofer also added, “Maybe it was time to consider it more with a grain of salt.”
Max was wary of this idea, “when the sentiments seem serious, when they are vastly upvoted (meaning others approve of what they are saying) and when they seem to reflect sentiments that we are seeing among the broader population of young people.” He pointed to a statistic showing that 41% of voters aged 18-29 approved of political violence in the wake of the Luigi Mangione murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024. This reflects disturbing national trends, and Max highlighted that the surveys that exist for Fizz mirror this result. Christofer is not on Fizz and stressed that Fizz is not real life.
But does anonymous speech have a place?
They all seemed to agree that there is a role for anonymous speech. Max and Zach pointed to the role it plays in the protection of whistleblowers, and to the historical precedent set by the Federalist Papers, where you can focus on what is being said, instead of on who is saying it. But they also stressed that the guise of anonymity allows students to say things that they would not normally say. On the left, they agreed, but for different reasons – because it allows you to imagine and express different viewpoints. They agreed that professors and administrators should be denied the same wall of anonymity provided to students, given their place and role on campus.
The next question is, does Fizz promote discourse? Zach sees it as a devaluation of speech. In his opinion, “People should spend more time with words before they are put out in the real world”. Isaac questions the upvote system and the fact that one person could be posting all the posts championing Charlie Kirk's death; there is no way actually to know. But they all agreed that it devalues discourse on campus. Max highlighted how often he has been threatened on social media by anonymous accounts.
When asked if there was any reasonable or beneficial discourse taking place on Fizz, they unanimously said none or hardly any. Even Isaac, who revealed himself to be a top-ten user, agreed that Fizz is not a place for “legitimate campus discourse.”
But behind this anonymous speech is not the question of how a person can conjure up the courage to be as hateful or vitriolic as they want to be. It is whether or not speech has become performative; are they not saying what they believe, or are they just saying what they think is the most popular thing? Has social media post turned into a Schadenfreude pile-on, when bad things happen to people you do not like?
Social media short-form commentary on a very public and high-profile murder is not an accurate way to judge the political climate on campus. It may be simple joking taken to the extreme for upvotes or flippancy. That is the hope.
Joseph Gonzalez ‘28 is a veteran/ transfer student, who has served in both the Army and Marine Corps and is currently majoring in History. He is a PFS writing fellow.
Tal Fortgang ‘17
When Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber spoke at Harvard on November 5, 2025, he expressed what to his detractors may have sounded like an epiphany. “There’s a genuine civic crisis in America,” he said, noting how polarization and social-media amplification have made civil discourse uniquely difficult. Amid that crisis, he concluded, colleges must retain “clear time, place, and manner rules” for protest, and when protesters violate those rules, the university must refuse to negotiate. As he warned: “If you cede ground to those who break the rules … you encourage more rule-breaking, and you betray the students and scholars who depend on this university to function.”
Collin Binkley
Associated Press
Some of the country’s most prestigious colleges are enrolling record numbers of low-income students — a growing admissions priority in the absence of affirmative action.
At Princeton University, this year’s freshman class has more low-income students than ever. One in four are eligible for federal Pell grants, which are scholarships reserved for students with the most significant financial need. That’s a leap from two decades ago, when fewer than 1 in 10 were eligible. “The only way to increase socioeconomic diversity is to be intentional about it,” Princeton President ChristopherEisgruber said in a statement. “Socioeconomic diversity will increase if and only if college presidents make it a priority.”
Angela Smith
Princetonians for Free Speech
In the basement of Robertson Hall on a crisp December evening, I had the privilege of attending a remarkable student-led event at Princeton University—a panel hosted by the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC) and supported by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS). The December 3 discussion centered on Fizz, an anonymous social media app for Princetonians that serves as a hub for commentary, debates and memes about campus life.
From my vantage point as Executive Director of PFS, the significance of this gathering extended well beyond its specific topic. What unfolded that evening represented one of the largest—and one of the most politically diverse—assemblies of student free-speech advocates in recent memory. Roughly forty Princetonians filled the room, not to hear a Supreme Court Justice or renowned author, but to engage sincerely with one another about speech, anonymity, and responsibility.
