Writer’s ‘Medium’ Account Suspended After Challenging School Shooting Narrative

On Thursday, popular Twitter user and writer known by the alias “Kantbot” found his Medium account suspended in the wake of publishing a piece that went viral regarding school shootings and mental health interventions primarily in public schools.

“My medium account has been suspended because of this article,” Kantbot posted to Twitter.

Despite a somewhat provocative headline — “Guns Don’t Kill People, School Psychologists Do” — the piece gives a nuanced look at the culture of school psychology and mental health interventions in relation to school shootings. Notably, the post veers from talking points supporting gun control measures or, conversely, armed guards at schools — the two competing narratives consistently debated after such attacks.

According to a vague email from the tech platform, the writer’s account was suspended for “hateful text, images, or other content in (his) username, profile, or bio.”

The writer’s bio on Medium featured a photo of a philosopher-esque “Pepe the Frog” and a quote from Friedrich Schiller’s “On the Aesthetic Education of Man.”

Kantbot finds the timing suspect. The writer noted that he’s been publishing posts on Medium for two years using the same bio and photo without ever encountering an issue.

“It seems strange that after I posted a popular story to all of a sudden be cracked down on without any warning,” he told The Daily Wire, adding that he “wasn’t given a chance to remove” his avatar, if that indeed was the issue.

“I have posted only thoughtful, in depth pieces on [Medium] and have had no issues with the platform for 2 years,” Kantbot highlighted via Twitter. “After challenging the school shooting narrative my account was banned within 24 hours. Can Medium explain this?”

Kantbot reached out to Medium on Friday for further clarification, but was again left without answers.

“Why isn’t there any transparency with these decisions on these platforms?” the writer asked. “The TOS (Terms of Service) is always vague, they enforce things when they feel like it. They use their policies as a smoke screen.”

“It’s not just an issue of freedom of speech but consumer rights,” argued Kantbot. “These platforms advocate for free speech, they claim to be open, but their decision making on who is and isn’t using their service correctly is completely opaque.”

“Don’t the people who patronize these platforms and give them their power have a right to know their biases?” he continued. “Why do we allow them to make fraudulent claims about how they stand for open news and communication and freedom of speech that are consistently contradicted by their own draconian decision making process.”

Similar questions surrounding censorship have been asked time and again of other big tech platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook. Last month, for example, the Twitter account for pro-life film “Unplanned” was suspended without explanation. After swift backlash, the account was restored.

But what happens to creatives and politicos without the support to flag clearly biased censorship? That answer seems clear.