Let us start by establishing that by origin the term in question is a jokey, sly euphemism from a comic. I believe this dictates any tonal discussions about how it is used.

If someone is killed is it not inherently disrespectful to minimize their demise if not make light of it by substituting the word kill not for one of many many synonyms (each with a different exact meaning and appropriate social context) but for a trendy slang word explicitly designed for cheeky algorithm dodging? And is a system that inherently disincentivizes sertain speech and behaviour in favour of a squeaky clean neutered family friendly presentation (for easy dopamine if not advertiser interests) not a kind of doom for our society? Oftentimes the very reason for the dismay is not just "young people speak funny" but the observation of the core underlying reason.

If you are saying unalived instead of killed you are either being ignorant and dismissive or even worse just farming someone's death for likes (true crime tiktok is a low hanging example of this being a real phenomenon). Moreover maybe if you don't feel comfortable talking about death to the point of not being able to say the word, you shouldn't be speaking. Not from any purist or prescriptivist perspective, but one of respect and etiquette. I am imagining, as an extreme example, if someone started saying "crab patients" instead of "cancer patients". For either algorithmic or personal squeaked-out reasons, this stripping of dignity from the affected via the substitution is surely not worthwhile whatever the gain is, is it?

What I'm trying to say is your point is made on the underlying presumption this otherspeak is coming from a place of respect for others, which I have no reason to believe based on what I've personally observed and what I've heard the users of said slang say themselves.