Exploring how LGBTQIA+ people use the affordance of pseudonymity and anonymity on platforms like Tumblr as a safety measure while forming connections and communities. I pause the voiceover intermittently to cough as I’m currently sick!
Nice Presentation Liam thank you.
I’m not a Tumblr user myself but have looked at the platform. I noticed that the esafety commision view it as a microblogging site as well as it a SNS (Social Networking Site). Which makes sense as it has links to WordPress etc. From what little I have seen it seems to have a strong bias towards Art, Anime and Fandom.
From your research did you identify whether this was the main use by members of the LGBTQI+ community?
You talked about the users ability to use a pseudonym, can users have multiple accounts or profiles in this particular space, to enable them to have one that is associated with their LGBTQI+ identify and say another associated with say their literary interests and if so are these accounts / profiles linked in anyway? For example lets say Bob has a profile specifically to interact with other Queer people where they use the pseudonym BoBoJoy can they have another profile BobJonesGreen that is associated with politics with neither being associated with the other?
Were you able to identify from your research whether the LGBTQI+ community had a greater preference to use Tumblr rather than any other platforms and whether this had any bearing on user location? Only I noticed for example that there has been a ‘ban’ for many in the Philippines due to Tumblr being incorrectly labelled as an unlicensed gambling site in March of this year.?
Hi Liam,
I really enjoyed getting to watch your presentation, Thank you! I love your creative slides, much nicer than mine haha.
1. Your discussion of pseudonymity as an affordance was really interesting, especially in how it enables safety and self-expression for LGBTQIA+ users. However, it got me thinking how do you see pseudonymity interacting with other platform affordances like visibility and persistence? For example, could increased visibility on platforms like Tumblr also expose users to harassment despite anonymity? How do you think these affordances work together or potentially contradict each other in shaping community formation?
2. You highlight how queer digital spaces like Tumblr and Queering the Map create safety and connection through anonymity and shared experiences. I was wondering though, do you think these kinds of ‘safe spaces’ can also become limiting or exclusionary in any way? For example, could they reduce interaction with broader publics or reinforce echo chambers? How might this impact the long-term formation of communities or social change?
3. Your comparison between Tumblr and Queering the Map was really effective in showing how different platforms support queer communities. I’m curious, how important do you think platform design and culture are in shaping these outcomes? For instance, would pseudonymity function the same way on platforms like Instagram or Facebook, which are more identity-based? And how might that change the kind of communities that form?
Leave a Reply