"I filmed the shooting see Facebook": the words of a killer advertising his work. Despite their best efforts, social media platforms had no hope against the mass circulation that followed. Graphic footage of the brutal Virginia shooting spread like wildfire online; an unstoppable takeover of newsfeeds worldwide.

Rather than focusing on the young reporters who fell victim to their ‘disgruntled former colleague’, the world’s media honed in on the man behind the outstretched arm. Vester Flanagan and his cruel films became the stars of the show, and we let them, too tempted to turn away. The point-of-view video feels surreal in its familiarity; first person shooter gaming at its sickest, the roving aim and outstretched weapon prove uncomfortable viewing with no controller in hand. That minute-long video on your newsfeed is too far from reality: double homicide, suicide and another injured.

A murder shared over and over, and thanks to Facebook and Twitter’s auto-play feature users across the globe were faced with real-life murder rolling across their screens. The ugly side of a feature which prides itself on making video content more accessible: it certainly succeeded. Hundreds took to social media on Wednesday in order to express their disgust at the footage they were automatically exposed to, with many more taking it upon themselves to share instructions on how to disable the default feature. But the damage was done.

The fight against auto-play lacks lustre however, when we turn to the news outlets spurring it on. News pages plastered with stills from the short videos, quotes from Flanagan’s manifesto and even the first person footage itself. The Sun in particular has been widely criticised for its front page on the story, complete with a heart-wrenching still of Alison Parker’s last moments, Glock aimed and trigger pulled.

The media has prioritised sales over respect for the victims. The story has become just that, a story told over and over, with journalists racing for the next new angle. Newspapers replicate auto-play, thrusting the graphic scenes upon the public from their prime position on the newsstand. And still, the papers sell. Headlines can be deemed insensitive and the media criticised, but we are the ones that fuel the media fire. We are the rubberneckers of the media age and we love a good scoop.

Tens of thousands of people have viewed one of the many searchable Youtube videos boasting the uncut POV footage of the shooting. Forget auto-play, our morbid curiosity drew us willingly to this story and kept us glued. It is in our nature to crane our necks to catch a glimpse of someone else’s car crash; content like this will persist so long as there remains a receptive viewership.

This is not the first piece of disturbing content to be shared online, and it certainly won’t be the last. From bullying to beheadings, social media sites have played host to horrifying scenes. These social platforms allow for instant content sharing, and with that comes the depraved individuals who know how to utilise it to their own ends. We must learn to recognise that what we see as a modern tool is too often a weapon in the wrong hands, and we the accomplices when we hit share.

Vester Flanagan has cemented his brutal crime in social history. He has achieved celebrity status and marked the path for those who follow, creating an online tutorial on how to send a message. We, and the media, were putty in his hands, spreading a killer’s message on his behalf. He forced the world to watch; from the live broadcast to his own social media presence, and the fax he sent to ABC news.

The media’s coverage made it hard for the world to look away from this devastating crime. But with reporters jostling to feed the appetite of a story-hungry public, we’re faced with an uncomfortable question that most wouldn't want to answer: would we want to look away if we could?