Abstract: The LGBTQIA+ community is often marginalised, both online and offline, but Social Network Sites (SNSs) can provide vital spaces for these users to find community, support, advocacy and practice identity, in a way the physical world cannot. However, notions of privacy and identity online are complex practices and SNSs have varying degrees of identity requirements while providing valuable connectivity. Platforms like Facebook have strict requirements that can impact the ability of LGBTQIA+ to explore identity safely, however, users employ savvy tactics like curated friendship lists and social stenography to communicate with friends and communities. Twitter has less emphasis on real identity and users find space for community building and advocacy, regardless of anonymity, like those of #GirlsLikeUs. Tumblr and Reddit have little identification restrictions and hence allow LGBTQIA+ members to more freely explore and express their identity with much less privacy risk. While all types of platforms carry risks to privacy and negativity through biases, data collection and context collapse potentials, LGBTQIA+ are negotiating these risks in various ways to access valuable community and support systems.
Since its rise to popular use in the 1990’s, the Internet has become a ubiquitous part of most people lives, facilitating both positive and negative connections across the globe. Today, Social Media Networks (SNSs) are at the centre of most communication, forming digital public spheres, but due to fundamental biases they privilege existing power structures such as Whiteness, heteronormativity and maleness, while those who challenge these categories are often harassed (Marwick, 2021). Further, those who challenge this normativity, such as feminists, ethnic minorities and LGBTQIA+, are already marginalised and hence more likely to face harassment, causing these already “minoritized voices to be systematically eliminated from the public sphere” (Marwick, 2021). This paper uses the acronym LGBTQIA+, for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer and Questioning, Intersex and Asexual and more, while acknowledging this may not cover all expressions of sexuality in the community. For LGBTQIA+ people, remaining closeted due to stigmatization, discrimination and threats of violence, may preclude individuals from connecting to other LGBTQIA+ people and gaining potential benefits for identify formation (Duguay, 2016, pp.894-5). These negative consequences of SNSs often cause LGBTQIA+ to regulate personal information and identity management as a matter of safety and privacy (Duguay, 2016, p.895). This paper argues that despite the complex notions of privacy and identity on SNSs like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Reddit, LGBTQIA+ people continue to negotiate these complexities to explore important expressions of identity and advocacy for themselves and their communities.
Privacy is a complex and varied aspect of social media that requires careful consideration. The main goal of the Internet was to connect people, however in today’s “platform capitalism” (Srnicek, 2017) era, “Connectivity is about money. Money and leverage. Money is leverage” (Cath, 2021, p.9). Corinne Cath explains that connectivity was designed so humans could connect with each other across the globe (2021, p.9), but platforms have capitalized on the data this connectivity produces, selling information to advertisers so they can specifically target customers (Cho, 2018, p.3192; Triggs et al., 2021, p.7). Further, Cath found that on a fundamental level, the Internet Engineering Task Force, whose work is crucial to Internet functioning and governance, sees no relationship between human rights and standards, instead, internet protocols for connectivity are core to business (2018, pp.2-9). As bigger platforms like Facebook buy smaller platforms like Instagram, they connect data between the platforms as platforms take on a rhizomatic form of integration (Srnicek, 2017).
Stan Schroeder (2021) explains how Signal tried to highlight this connectivity. Signal called Facebook’s privacy settings hazy to most, “dimly concealed within complex, opaquely-rendered systems and fine print designed to be scrolled past,” this causes most users to consent without really investigating the details, but if users knew just how much information is collected, they might feel differently. The information was targeted to individual users, one ad read, “You got this ad because you’re a teacher, but more importantly you’re a Leo (and single). This ad used your location to see you’re in Moscow. You like to support sketch comedy, and this ad thinks you do drag.” The campaign highlights how connected user information can be on SNSs, despite perceived employment of privacy settings. Facebook ultimately shut the advert and Signal’s account down (Schroeder, 2021). While this ad presents a shocking picture of how much data we produce, it highlights how easy it is to surrender privacy on social media.
Part of why many users surrender, at least in part, to this surveillance is argued by Lawrence Lessig. He explains that historically, in all communities we were partially monitored, our movements and actions noticed by those around us, with privacy being “what went on in one’s head, not in one’s life.” (Lessig, 1998, pp.1-2). Meaning while we thought we had privacy, we have always had some level of social surveillance. In the public spheres of SNSs our data is searchable, more accessible and being sold by platforms without us knowing about it (Lessig, 1998, p.17), therefore user privacy, or lack thereof, is reliant on the user to implement measures of safeguard. Alice Marwick and danah boyd (2018) expand these notions of privacy, noting privacy has always varied through different cultures, geographical boundaries and contexts (p.1159). Marginalized classes, such as LGBTQIA+, people of colour, immigrants, people with disability, youth, elderly and religious minorities, have always experienced privacy differently than those from privileged places in society, this has flowed into the online arena (Marwick & boyd, 2018, p.1159).
Further, danah boyd (2011) describes platforms like Facebook as being “public-by-default, private-with-effort,” where Facebook’s information aggregation and “default publicness” (2011) makes user material “far more accessible and visible” (2008, p.13). They emphasize that privacy does not necessarily mean controlling information, people want to share, but having agency over one’s information (boyd, 2011). Not having agency can lead to context collapse where “a flattening of the spatial, temporal, and social boundaries that otherwise separate audiences on SNSs” can occur (boyd, in Dugay, 2016, p.892). Which becomes very difficult on platforms where “networked publics” arise from SNS’s profiles, friends lists, stream updates and public commenting tools (boyd, 2010, p. 42 in Abidin, 2021). boyd goes on, “From my perspective, protecting privacy is about making certain that people have the agency they need to make informed decisions about how they engage in public.” (boyd, 2011). This leaves LGBTQIA+ users with privacy dilemmas where they risk the connected nature of social media and platforms and therefore their privacy, for the potential for community building and support.
Users are finding their own ways around privacy dilemmas. Michael DeVito, Ashley Marie Walker and Jeremy Birnholtz (2018) relate this to a “privacy paradox”, an apparent disconnect between users’ desire for privacy controls and their actual behaviour when presented with tools to manage their audience (p.17). Their study found while users clearly needed to protect their privacy, they did so primarily by other means, not using platforms privacy settings alone (DeVito et al., 2018, p.17). Crystal Abidin (2021) expands an overarching strategy of circumvention as “refracted publics,” where users attempt fly under the radar and still disseminate information in an “expansive and accessible way,” through locked platforms, private groups and ephemeral content (p.3). Depending on the platform, users can encode messages for different audiences via “dog whistles” or “parallel literacies” (Abidin, 2019 in Abidin, 2021, p.4) and utilise social steganography (boyd & Marwick, 2014). These practices can allow users, and in particular influencers, to champion issues such as LGBTQIA+ representation and advocacy, anti-racism and health (Abidin, 2021, p.5). Some of these practices will be discussed more later, but they allow users to explore identities within SNSs.
Identity is multi-layered and requires space to allow exploration of all its complexities, and yet as we have seen, privacy on social media constantly threatens a user’s ability to come to terms with identity. Erving Goffman’s The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959) is widely cited (see Brusseau, 2019; DeVito et al., 2018; Duguay, 2016; Hanckel et al., 2019; Marwick & boyd, 2014; Papacharissi, 2010) for his explanation of the self as a performance. This performance is tailored to certain audiences, in certain contexts, to avoid exposing parts of our identity that may be seen as non-conforming. Yet, our identity has been sandwiched together by big data that seeks to place us in neat boxes as an “authentic self”, without the space for the separate parts of our identity that have always existed, for example, parent, friend, employee and partner (Brusseau, 2019). Brusseau explains that our identities are always discontinuous and evolving, but many platforms don’t allow for this multiplicity (2019). At the same time, SNSs offer users a space to construct a self-representation of how they wish to be identified (Ellison & boyd, 2013). Through the use of various multimedia tools, like photos, text and videos (Papacharissi, 2010, pp.304-5), users can experiment and explore their sexuality across various performative audiences (Hanckel et al., 2019). Therefore, it is possible to see that we present ourselves online in much the same way Goffman discussed, the difference now is that our audience is much more connected than previously.
Despite the challenges of identity online and context collapse for LGBTQIA+ users, online spaces remain an important resource for these marginalised people. Previous literature has shown that regardless of the risk, emotional labour and management involved in online identity (DeVito et al, 2018, p.2; Papacharissi, 2010, p.307; Hanckel et al., 2019, p.1269), these spaces are important for community building, new ties, support and advocacy (DeVito et al, 2018, p.5; Hanckel et al., 2019, p.1264; Papacharissi, 2010, p.305; Delanty, 2018). Ecosystems of identity performance online allow users to experiment in spaces with lower identity persistence, enabling them to become more comfortable and confident and can lead to LGBTQIA+ self-representation in less anonymous spaces (DeVito et al, 2018, p.5). Hanckel et al. (2019) also note how through careful curation of content across a variety of platforms, users were able to manage boundaries between audiences with a precision that suited them, building and fostering supportive peer networks to engage in selective disclosures of gender and sexuality, as well as building support for ‘coming out’ among their peers (pp.1268-75). Starting with Facebook, we look at how users curate content and identity on specific platforms.
Facebook is perhaps the most notorious platform for context collapse, but LGBTQIA+ users are still circumventing the use of real name policy and employing strategies to explore their identity. Facebook has strong ideas of “authenticity” where you should only be one person who fits into a category (Brusseau, 2019), in a “steroidal version of publicity” that presumes being in public carries no risk (Cho, 2018, p.3184; DeNardis and Hackl, 2016, pp.762-3). Further, Cho (2018) argues many platforms have design biases with “baked-in normativities that rehearse a standpoint that being-in-public is somehow neutral, low-risk, unraced, ungendered, and unsexed” (p.3190), ignoring the realities of many users. In response, some users like Max, a 23-year-old queer, nonbinary user, are utilising the nickname feature to trial new names that fit their emerging identities in the process of coming out (Hanckel, 2019, p.1272). Alexander Cho (2018) interviewed one user who had a “fake” profile in high school where he was unable to express a truthful identity because of personal circumstances. Once he moved to college, he set up another account, with a shortened version of his name so it was still “real” according to Facebook, where he was able to be out comfortably and explore his queer identity. He carefully navigated privacy settings and friends list to ensure his parallel worlds didn’t overlap. It worked for a short time, before the worlds crossed over and he was confronted by his mother (Cho, 2018, p.3188). This is just one example of context collapse due to design biases on this platform.
Savvy users are able to utilise various tactics to protect privacy and identity in an effort to participate and circumvent biases. LGBTQIA+ users employ a combination of highly tailored privacy settings, selective and intentional “friends,” social stenography and encoded messages, and even occasional wall cleanses and use of aliases, to have some level of separation of audiences, privacy and comfort in their self-representations and communities (Duguay, 2016, pp.893-5). When users do encounter unwanted collisions or negativity they can unfriend, unfollow, report and block other users and content (Hanckel et al., 2019, pp.1271-5). Hanckel et al. argue this collective labour that circumnavigates platform policies and norms is crucial to “moments of queer-world-building beyond the self” and “critical to the health and well being of young people” (2019, p.1275). Cho (2018) found that users perceived that Twitter was a less dangerous space than Facebook (p.3187).
Twitter is a shorter form communication platform that relies on the use of hashtags, to convey topics to users. It has also become a place for “highly visible LGBTQ “counterpublics” that challenge heteronormative assumptions and discourses (Duguay, 2016a, p276; Jackson et al., 2018, pp.1869-70). Its use of ‘retweeting” allows LGBTQIA+ users to participate in conversations and endorse ideas without posting personal content and potentially outing themselves (Duguay, 2016a, p290). Many users perceived that Twitter has a degree of anonymity as handles, or usernames don’t have ‘real name’ requirements and content seems subtler (Duguay, 2016, p.901). The work of advocating and education on this platform is, however, often more important than anonymity.
Other Twitter users can self-organise into communities, or counterpublics, through the use of hashtags, as in the case of Janet Mock and Laverne Cox, the #GirlsLikeUs transwoman movement (Jackson et al., 2018, p1869). In 2012, Janet Mock used her status as magazine editor to create the hashtag #GirlsLikeUs in support of transgender women. She noticed trans women, especially those of colour, had long suffered from stereotypes, been made responsible for their own victimisation in the US courts and faced unique threats to their health and lives as a consequence of their sexuality and intersections with race and class. As the community built, users shared stories of their everyday lives, sick relatives, work stories and relationships, normalising their experiences and lives and providing solidarity and emotional support to each other. In this way, Mock advocates for trans women on Twitter, despite the risks to her personal privacy by using her real identity, she gives a voice to issues surrounding this community. Mock also makes use of the #GirlsLikeUs community to highlight issues around anti-Black violence and Laverne Cox, a proud trans woman, activist and actor in Orange is the New Black, uses her celebrity to highlight issues facing trans prisoners and advocates for prison reforms (Jackson et al., 2018, pp.1873-9). Cox helped to advocate through #FreeCeCe for CeCe McDonald, a trans woman who was sent to a men’s prison for three and half years after she killed a white supremacist in an act of self-defence. Subsequently, raising questions about the differential treatment of Black trans women in the US legal system. By adding the #FreeCeCe hashtag to #GirlsLikeUs, the community was able to bring CeCe’s narrative to mainstream media and it has continued as a voice for imprisoned trans women past the term of CeCe’s incarceration. In this community members frequently celebrate each other’s accomplishments, create change, build community and importantly, work “toward elevating the stories and needs of trans women into the mainstream” (Jackson et al., 2018, pp.1870-84). Therefore, we can see how Twitter can provide an opportunity to advocate for and build community, and how some users, like Cox, are willing to use their real identity to further their purpose, despite the risks to privacy. While Twitter has a degree of anonymity, Tumblr and Reddit allow users to have much more ephemeral identities.
Tumblr and Reddit are microblogging sites that allow high degrees of anonymity via their platform affordances. Reddit is one of the largest SNSs that allows multiple anonymous accounts with varying degrees of identification, this does not, however, mean it is risk free (Triggs et al., 2021, p6). Triggs et al. argue platforms like Reddit can lend themselves to “deeply meaningful and precarious identity expressions, which can occur precisely because of the anonymity they afford” (2021, p.6). As Reddit provides structural flexibility in simple account registration without emails, LGBTQIA+ users can easily swap identities and accounts, and therefore express and experiment with self-representation (Triggs et al., 2021, pp.7-8). Similarly, precisely because of the affordance of anonymity and pseudonyms, Tumblr is a tool for curating and displaying context-specific content, allowing LGBTQIA+ users to shape their self-representation and connect with others via blogging and reblogging, without the pressure of constant negative surveillance (Duguay, 2016, p.901; Cho, 2018; pp.3184-7; Hanckel et al., 2019, p.1268; DeVito et al., 2018, pp.10-7). Cho (2018) found that students also used Tumblr for “the vibrant circulation of counter-hegemonic cultural comment,” often learning more form other users than from professors (p.3189). Further, students often interacted on Tumblr with selected people they knew in real life, despite the anonymity and seclusion the platform affords, because they were trusted contacts and the platform does not by design map network connections (Cho, 2018, pp.3187-92). These platforms therefore provide a safe space for the critical exploration of LGBTQIA+ identities because the platforms do not have persistent identity requirements, allowing users to practice multiplicity.
The Internet has become a crucial element for LGBTQIA+ people and communities to explore identity and build support for their emotional and psychological well-being. Privacy online and in SNSs is complicated. As platforms make themselves highly profitable via policies shaping big data collection, these platforms become simultaneously risky and critical spaces for LGBTQIA+ users to inhabit. Users employ savvy and complex tactics for identity expression, to negotiate and circumvent some of these privacy risks to varying extents on different platforms, depending on the “technological architecture” of each platform (Duguay, 2016, p.902). Facebook is often fraught with danger and causes many to present an inauthentic identity, while places like Twitter, Reddit and Tumblr, to varying extents, allow users to build community and freely explore and express their LGBTQIA+ identities. Moving forward, big platforms should carefully consider how policies affect already marginalised communities, in an effort to remove some of the emotional labour these users face just to participate and connect online, which was the very purpose of social media in the first place.
References
Abidin, C. (2021). From “Networked Publics” to “Refracted Publics”: A Companion Framework for Researching “Below the Radar” Studies. Social Media + Society, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120984458
boyd, d. (2011, November 21). Debating Privacy in a Networked World for the WSJ. Social Media Collective. https://socialmediacollective.org/2011/11/20/debating-privacy-in-a-networked-world-for-the-wsj/
Brusseau, J. (2019). Ethics of identity in the time of big data. First Monday. Volume? Issue? https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i5.9624
Cath, C. (2021, July). The technology we choose to create: Human rights advocacy in the Internet Engineering Task Force. In Telecommunications Policy, 45(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102144
Cho, A. (2018). Default publicness: Queer youth of color, social media, and being outed by the machine. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3183–3200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817744784
Delanty, G. (2018). Community. Chapter: Virtual Community: Belonging as communication. Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9781315158259-10/virtual-community-gerard-delanty?context=ubx&refId=5ab8fdca-5ba3-4554-9017-c872c039c6d6
DeNardis, L., & Hackl, A. M. (2016). Internet control points as LGBT rights mediation. Information, Communication & Society, 19(6), 753–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1153123
DeVito, M. A., Walker, A. M., & Birnholtz, J. (2018). ’Too Gay for Facebook’: Presenting LGBTQ+ Identity Throughout the Personal Social Media Ecosystem. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274313
Duguay, S. (2016). “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society, 18(6), 891–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814549930
Duguay, S. (2016a). Constructing Public Space| “Legit Can’t Wait for #Toronto #WorldPride!”: Investigating the Twitter Public of a Large-Scale LGBTQ Festival. International Journal of Communication, 10(0), 25. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/3771
Ellison, N. B., & boyd, d. (2013, January 1). Sociality Through Social Network Sites. The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199589074.013.0008
Hanckel, B., Vivienne, S., Byron, P., Robards, B., & Churchill, B. (2019). ‘That’s not necessarily for them’: LGBTIQ+ young people, social media platform affordances and identity curation. Media, Culture & Society, 41(8), 1261–1278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719846612
Jackson, S. J., Bailey, M., & Foucault Welles, B. (2018). #GirlsLikeUs: Trans advocacy and community building online. New Media & Society, 20(5), 1868–1888. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817709276
Lessig, L. (1998). The Architecture of Privacy. https://cyber.harvard.edu/works/lessig/architecture_priv.pdf
Marwick, A. E. (2021). Morally Motivated Networked Harassment as Normative Reinforcement. Social Media + Society, 7(2), 20563051211021376. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211021378
Marwick, A. E. and boyd, d. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543995
Marwick, A. E. and boyd, d. (2018). Privacy at the Margins| Understanding Privacy at the Margins—Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 12(0), 9. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/7053
Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=574608
Schroeder, S. (2021, May 5). Signal tried to run a very honest ad campaign on Instagram. Facebook said no. Mashable. https://mashable.com/article/facebook-signal-ad-campaign
Srnicek, N. (2017). The challenges of platform capitalism: Understanding the logic of a new business model. Juncture, 23(4), 254–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/newe.12023
Triggs, A. H., Møller, K., & Neumayer, C. (2021). Context collapse and anonymity among queer Reddit users. New Media & Society, 23(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819890353
Tracey, I enjoyed your informative paper. I found myself thinking about many parallel issues as I read. I think the very notion of marginalisation is evolving, and we may even need new language around these ideas. By this I mean that in recent decades a series of minority groups have gained unprecedented exposure, understanding, acceptance and protection under new legislation. In an ironic sense, some groups have experienced disproportionate attention in the public narrative, in government and definitely in society as a whole. This has surely been a very positive thing. And while we need to continue challenging ourselves as a society, we should also pause and acknowledge how far we have come in a very short time. We can keep dividing society into smaller and smaller sub-groups and demand a spotlight be shone on their struggles and disadvantages. Little People, Crohn’s sufferers, Objectophiles, Nodulocystic Acne victims. All worthy of our better understanding, non-judgemental visibility, language changes (we should not call Little People ‘dwarves’), etc. Can we trend SM campaigns? Change legislation? Demand representation in the workplace, government? Demand children start learning about these groups in primary school? It’s an interesting time we live in. I believe as a society we are far more advanced than our counterparts even 50 years ago. At least in terms of our compassion and acceptance of difference. Maybe we need to reach a time when the teaching and the legislation and the social narrative is simply – we are all equally valued and each unique individual deserves the same opportunities, understanding and protection as the next person. I’m hopeful this networked human anthill is taking us this direction. you might like to read my paper in this Identity stream: https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2022/ioa/300/me-2-0-the-ability-for-individuals-to-perform-multiple-selves-online-allows-greater-freedom-than-ever-to-explore-their-identity-at-a-cost/
Hi Brendan,
Thank you for taking the time to read my paper.
I agree we have come a long way in representation and awareness, and I think teaching kids in school about compassion and acceptance is a great idea, as I’m sure many do now. Awareness of invisible struggles is very important, however I think it’s important to recognise that systemic marginalisation is grossly different than a lack of awareness. I am a Crohn’s sufferer and while at times I’ve had to plead to use bathroom facilities and therefore wished for greater awareness around the disease and those like it, I am cognisant of the fact it’s not marginalisation. My voice has never been silenced on the basis of my disease, because I’m a woman yes, but not because I have Crohn’s. That’s not to say all cases are the same, because I think that marginalisation can feel like a personal thing.
I too am optimistic for the future as our awareness of various struggles is raised through social media. I think it can only help us get better as a society when more people can have the freedom to express issues and identity with safety.
I look forward to reading your paper soon!
Cheers
Tracy
Hello, Tracy. Your paper was very interesting so thanks for the suggesting your paper. It is depressing to know that many minority groups such as the LGBTQIA+ are facing massive harassment and marginalisation by society and the act of violence and unwelcoming behaviour is not acceptable irrespective of who it directed to. It is nice knowing that social media platforms enable a place for them to connect, support and be able to express their identity freely. One of the things in your paper that was interesting is when you talk about privacy and data collection. I recently found about how our data is being shared without consent and it alarmed me. It is both scary and immoral.
When talking about social surveillance, it reminds me of the BLM movement with many people developing a fear of virtual surveillance as the government began to intrude on people’s private online identities under of notion of looking out for “political rebellion” This can start to create fear into minority group, and they may reduce their ability to be express themselves on the internet. People part of the LGBTQIA+ might prefer to be anonymous online as they may not feel comfortable or may use the internet as place to connect with people who can support them as they may not have access to this support in their daily life. Creating this fear of losing their privacy privilege can lead to these groups taking a step back from the online platforms.
Some questions I got for you are:
1. When privacy is so important to LGBTQIA+ communities online, do you believe that knowing the extent of these data collection or surveillance would hinder their participation online?
2. With reddit and Tumblr allowing better flexibly when it comes to privacy and enabling the LGBTQIA+ community a better method of exploring and representing their identities online, do you think other platforms should take the same step or is too many anonymity dangerous? Is there a way to have privacy while feeling safe and being able to represent yourself freely the way you want to.
I would like to hear your response on these question. Have a nice day.
Regards
Asli
Hi Asli,
Thank you for reading my paper, I’m pleased you found it interesting. Great questions too.
1. I believe that LGBTQIA+ would continue to interact online because of the importance to their sense of self, community access and ability to experiment and explore who they are, that they may not otherwise have the ability to offline. I think that they are largely hyperaware of the lack of privacy, because of how connected social media is, and tailor their performances online accordingly, due to the fact they belong to an already marginalised group.
2. Ultimately, the only way to feel completely safe online, is when we have a tolerant society that does not judge before it acts and is inclusive for all. I’d like to think we may get there one day but it seems unlikely, despite the how far we have come in the last 20 years, I suspect those most marginalised would have a very different opinion. I think for the same reason, anonymity is both a blessing and hidden danger. While it allows for people to more freely express themselves, it also means there is no easy way to stop the trolls. I don’t think we need to have every platform as anonymous, not because that is dangerous, but because people should have the option to choose whether they are identified or not. As boyd (2011) argues, its more about having agency over our information and privacy, than necessarily hiding everything.
Thanks, Tracy
Bravo, Tracey. I really enjoyed that. I suppose it is so easy to fall into a trap of discrimination or taking an inconsiderate approach towards the LGBTQIA+ communities from a Social Media Platform perspective. I wonder if there is the ‘ultimate solution’ to all this? You mentioned that the policies should be more fine-cut in accordance to all profiles. The question remains…what exactly is that? The one obstacle I remain stuck at is that, online societies have become so varied and interlaced, that it is simply too messy to identify profiles and groups correctly, without having a ‘backfire’ effect, in that discrimination is once again shown to those who seek to be identified in a certain way. Do we want to categorise or keep it uniform? And does ‘uniform’ mean we are simply painting everyone with the same brush. It is a catch 22 for me. Just some food for thought.
Hi Ozan,
Thank you for reading my paper. I agree with you, it is a very complex problem when we are so interconnected. The approach needs to be multi-level, with education at a social level, policies that are clear and easy to understand, and that are made in consultation with diverse stakeholders. I think it’s really hard to truly understand all sides of a story unless it is your lived reality, so if social media platforms want to be as inclusive as they claim, they need to make policies based on as much information and perspective as they can. They need to have integrity in dealing with harassment and privacy, and be held accountable, or better yet, have corporate responsibility in the first place.
Hi Tracy, I enjoyed reading your paper!
As you mentioned, internet platforms allow marginalised people such as the LGBTQIA+ community to explore their identities and build mutual emotional and psychological support. Because of this, it is all the more important for internet platforms to protect the privacy of their users – to make them feel safe to use the platform to express their identities, while fully respecting their expression.
Having to be careful about expressing themselves on the internet, one can imagine that as marginalised people in real life might be even more careful about expressing their privacy and identity. This reflects that society still needs to create a more tolerant environment for marginalised people to have a safer environment to express themselves. However, this is not something that can be done in a day. Just as I write this myself, I reflect on whether my written language is also tainted with my own bias.
I also believe that the LGBTQIA+ community who are boldly expressing their identity on social media have made this marginalised group more visible by sacrificing their privacy and emotions. At the same time, they suffer the consequences of possible cyberbullying. What do you think?
Very informative article for discussion; thank you again for your insight!
My article is about social media’s propagation of the perfect image of women’s appearance can cause women’s appearance anxiety and lack of confidence. If you are interested, please kindly find the link: https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2022/ioa/889/social-medias-propagation-of-the-perfect-image-of-womens-appearance-can-cause-womens-appearance-anxiety-and-lack-of-confidence/
Best,
Sining
Hi Sining,
Thanks for reading my paper. I completely agree with you, the best way forward is to create a more tolerant society, so that marginalised people don’t need protect their identity so fiercely. I think we are taking great steps forward, but I also think there is almost always going to be a small minority who are intolerant and vocal about that.
You make a great point about language bias, where some people may not even realise they are being intolerant or hurtful to LGBTQIA+ people, just by the language they use. This is where we need more consultation and education, so that people do know how to address and use the correct language.
I also agree with your statement about those LGBTQIA+ who are boldly expressing their identity and suffering the consequences of cyberbullying. I do think there are those like Mock and Cox, who are bearing the brunt of backlash to normalise trans people and get their stories out in the public sphere. They are tremendously important and brave to put their privacy (at least some aspects) aside and take personal risks. I think it shows how sometimes the risks are worth it when they can enact real change, as they did with CeCe, and getting the media to change their narrative of the woman (Jackson et al., 2018).
I look forward to reading your paper.
Thanks again, Tracy.
Hi Tracy,
I saw a post you made on another paper discussing LGBTQ+ youth and you wrote so succinctly that I decided to hop over to check out your own paper. I’m so glad I did as this is a great read. Even better still, since I have written my own paper on the affordances of Tumblr (for Queer/LGBTQ+ youth) and the benefits of anonymity for identity creation/reflection online, it was great to see a similar topic of discussion!
It was super interesting here to read about how LGBTQIA+ users are negotiating privacy affordances creatively on certain platforms. I know that after researching Tumblr I found anonymity and privacy were vital to queer/LGBTQ+ users being able/willing to share personal stories, opinions, interests, and information online, with this sharing of personal content making it possible to perform identity creation, self-reflection, and self-actualization online. It kills me that as you have described, the limitation of privacy online is directly linked to how marginalized users engage in online identity work.
This is a great paper and if you have any time feel free to check out my paper too: https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2022/csm/1191/how-tumblr-acts-as-a-crucial-resource-for-online-queer-communities/#comment-1988
I’d love to know what you think 🙂
Hi Audrey,
Thanks for reading my paper, glad you found it interesting. I have already popped a comment on your paper 🙂
Cheers, Tracy
Hi Tracy,
Great effort with your paper!
You said that “…identity is multi-layered and requires space to allow exploration of all its complexities…” which I strongly agree with and also explored in my own paper.
I also view the expression of ones self and ‘identity’ is a performance. Furthermore, users are able to choose and adjust the online identity they perform, which you discussed and I also identified as performing multiple identities on various platforms. You also discussed the issue of privacy, and how some people tailor their performances to certain audiences, which I thought you worded perfectly in terms of the concept of performing multiple identities on various platforms.
It can depend on the audience, but majority of society, especially users we don’t know in person, can be sensitive towards certain aspects portrayed through online identity. Especially if the identity is non-conforming, or the audience does not agree with the person’s identity, values, morals, beliefs, or opinions, it can be difficult to express ones authentic identity.
I would love to hear your thoughts on what you think the future of performing online identities will look like. Do you think the pressure to conform the identity we perform online to what society sees is acceptable is engraved in our minds permanently, or will movements towards expressing true identity will one day become so effective that we will be able to post freely on social media without worrying about how the audience (society) will react or think?
Again, great paper and a very enjoyable read!
Kind regards,
Shellee