A short, sarcastic TikTok clip has turned San Diego influencer Megan Farina into the centre of a ferocious online backlash that critics say has cost her partner's small electrical firm dearly.
Megan Farina, a self-styled political content creator active on short-form platforms, posted a video on 10 September 2025 that mocked the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, offering the same 'thoughts and prayers' refrain he used after school shootings.
The clip went viral almost immediately, drawing millions of views and a torrent of angry responses that, within days, targeted a local business linked to Farina. Social users identified a partner, Justin Kriney, and his company, Evolution Electrical, in Oceanside; reviewers and opponents flooded the firm's listings with negative ratings and comments, and Farina later posted a second statement claiming her family had been 'traumatised' by the fallout.
The Viral Post
Farina's original short video, shared on TikTok and widely reposted on Instagram, used a mocking refrain of 'thoughts and prayers' while she criticised Kirk's public record on empathy and rhetoric.
In the clip, she said she 'lost [her] sympathy a little bit' for someone who, she argued, 'used his entire life and his entire platform to spread racism, hate...' That chorus, at a moment when the country was still reeling from Kirk's killing, produced instant outrage and thousands of replies across platforms.
The post was removed by the original account after the reaction escalated, but not before screenshots and re-uploads circulated on Facebook, Instagram and X, amplifying the attention from both conservative and liberal audiences.
Reaction channels and creators re-posted the clip and produced commentary videos, expanding the audience well beyond Farina's immediate followers.
Collateral Damage
Within 48 hours of the post's circulation, internet sleuths traced a social connection to Evolution Electrical, a small Oceanside firm whose business profile and licensing information lists Justin Kriney as founder.
The company's Yelp and neighbourhood listings showed a marked spike in negative reviews dated around 11 September 2025, with many invoking the 'thoughts and prayers' refrain and criticising the company on the basis of Farina's social media behaviour.
That sudden deluge reduced the company's online rating and prompted owners and neighbouring businesses to post clarifications and complaints.
Local reports noted the collateral effect: staff, customers and neighbouring firms reported an uptick in hostile contacts and screenshots of the viral clip; some small businesses with similar names or unrelated owners were falsely accused online, a pattern seen in other digital pile-ons.
One local contractor published a video insisting their firm had been erroneously linked to Farina and asking for an end to the harassment.
Farina's Response and the Broader Debate on Online Accountability
On 19 September 2025, Farina posted a follow-up video in which she said: 'We have been traumatised and stripped of our privacy, all because I said Charlie Kirk... did not have mine'.
She argued that while words have consequences, the scale of the response, which, by her account, reached family members and professional contacts, had become unbearable. Her statement was reposted by reaction sites and local outlets, and it did little to calm critics who insisted that targeting a small family business was disproportionate.
@meganfarinaa My statement on the events of the past week. To reiterate here is the email ivebeendoxxed2 at gmail.
♬ original sound - Megan Farina
The episode has reopened familiar arguments about accountability online: when a public social post provokes real-world consequences, where does legitimate protest end and harassment begin?
Legal experts and free-speech advocates say that expressing political outrage is protected speech, but doxxing, threats and targeted campaigns that harm third parties raise ethical and sometimes legal questions.
What emerged most clearly is the modern feedback loop: a provocative short video sparks millions of views, users hunt for ties to offline life and small businesses — often with thin margins and limited public relations resources — find themselves navigating a political maelstrom they did not choose.
This leaves a wider, uncomfortable question: who pays for online outrage when it lands in the real world?
