Social Media’s Misunderstanding of Luigi Mangione
Since Luigi Mangione’s identification as a suspect in UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s murder, online narratives have proliferated. Users have circulated manipulated images attempting to establish alibis for Mangione. He’s become an online sensation, with some deeming him “too hot to convict.” His arrest led to a surge in followers on X, as people scrutinized his past posts.
The words “delay,” “deny,” and “depose” found at the crime scene suggested, even before Mangione’s arrest, that Thompson’s murder was revenge for a denied insurance claim. (This phrase alludes to insurance company tactics to avoid payouts and resembles the title of a book criticizing the health insurance industry by legal professor Jay Feinman.)
Following the murder, some believed it would spark increased class consciousness, with social media users sharing their frustrations. Posts like “Prior authorization is required for thoughts and prayers” exemplified this sentiment.
However, this expectation proved inaccurate. Social media’s rapid-fire judgments overshadowed the complexities of Mangione’s apparent background. The pursuit of likes and shares often leads to swift, harsh opinions, even when the reality is more nuanced than stereotypes allow.
Mangione doesn’t fit the typical image of a cold-blooded killer. He hails from a wealthy, prominent family, was valedictorian at his elite high school, and holds Ivy League degrees. He has a significant online presence. University of Pennsylvania fraternity brothers and former classmates described him as unremarkable and “normal.”
Mangione’s Reddit history reveals a mention of Blue Cross Blue Shield covering his irritable bowel syndrome tests, not Thompson’s company. He also expressed interest in Ted Kaczynski’s “Industrial Society and Its Future” and Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax. These disparate details make it difficult to categorize him—is he a kind person or an extremist? His political leanings remain unclear.
Perhaps this ambiguity is irrelevant. Online, people have already formed opinions, portraying Mangione as either a hero or a villain. This mythmaking hinders the pursuit of truth about the murder and Mangione’s own apparent motivation: reforming the nation’s healthcare system.
The internet’s penchant for sensationalism is well-known. Social media platforms prioritize immediate reactions rather than thorough investigation. Competition for attention leads to quick, witty, and extreme posts about individuals we barely understand, regardless of their digital footprint.
This creates online narratives often diverging from reality, especially in complex situations. The repetition of information, regardless of accuracy, reinforces belief—a phenomenon known in psychology as the “illusory truth effect.” Consequently, public understanding can deviate significantly from the eventual facts.
Furthermore, these online discussions are unlikely to solve healthcare issues. While the case unfolds, meaningful conversations about accessible and affordable healthcare and the rejection of legitimate claims are lacking. Nor is there much focus on the financial struggles affecting 14 million Americans, many forced to reduce food spending due to medical debt, according to KFF polling.
Social media facilitates complaints and praise, fostering community—but in Mangione’s case, it’s also predictable. The internet jumps to conclusions before obtaining all the facts.
We often fall short on proposing solutions. Instead of addressing healthcare access, we create content. Rather than meme-ifying Mangione, waiting and learning would be a wiser approach.