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.
What do you suppose Publius might say in answer to the title question?
On Jan. 2, the Office of the Vice President for Campus Life released a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding a new University policy regulating audio and visual recording. The policy classifies any recording made at events deemed private — where not all participants have consented — as “secret or covert,” placing such recordings in violation of University rules.
However, recording at public events, such as advertised public speaker events, is permitted unless the speaker, performer, or party hosting the event explicitly states otherwise. “The policy does not cover meetings open to all current members of the resident University community or to the public,” according to the FAQ website.
Last month’s issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly (PAW) fawns over Michael Park ’98, a right-wing lawyer and, since 2018, a U.S. circuit judge. Park’s portrait commands the cover, while the accompanying long-form profile, titled “The Contender,” speculates that he could become Donald Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court. The author is P.G. Sittenfeld ’07.
But Sittenfeld is not just any old journalist. Last May, President Donald Trump pardoned Sittenfeld, a one-time rising star in Cincinnati politics, following his conviction on federal bribery and extortion charges in 2022. Sittenfeld, a Democrat, owes his freedom to Trump — the man who nominated his subject Park to his judgeship, and the man with the power to elevate Park further to the nation’s highest court. Nowhere does PAW disclose this striking conflict of interest.
Researchers at Princeton and across the nation who receive federal funding have had a tumultuous year. Come Wednesday, they have one more thing to balance: a new federal public access policy that could cost researchers thousands of dollars more to publish in academic journals.
The new public access policy, known as the Nelson Memo, was released under the Biden administration in 2022 and mandates that any research that is funded by federal agencies be made publicly available at the time of publication.
werich1.COM
December 30, 2025
My last salary was $8750, ecom only worked 12 hours a week. My longtime neighbor yr estimated $15,000 and works about 20 hours for seven days. I can’t believe how blunt he was when I looked up his information,