Social Media, Communities, & Networks Conference 2026: Semester 1 & SP1

Comments

3 responses to “LGBTQIA+ & Social media Representation – by Ashlee Perry”

1. 

   Clare Russell

   13/05/2026

   I really enjoyed your presentation! below are my three questions.

   In your presentation on LGBTQIA+ representation in social media, you highlighted how platforms can create visibility and support for marginalised communities. Drawing on ideas about participatory culture and online communities, do you think social media has genuinely improved LGBTQIA+ representation, or has it sometimes reduced identities to trends or “performative” support?

   Your presentation showed both the supportive and harmful aspects of online spaces for LGBTQIA+ users. Using the ideas about online communities, digital power, and platform governance, do you think social media companies should take a stronger role in moderating harmful content, or could this create new issues around censorship and representation?

   Your presentation highlighted how LGBTQIA+ creators and communities use social media to share personal stories and experiences. Drawing on the unit’s ideas about identity construction and self-presentation online, how do you think the pressure for visibility, engagement, and validation on platforms like TikTok or Instagram shapes the way LGBTQIA+ identities are expressed online?

   Reply
2. 

   Clare Russell

   13/05/2026

   reposting my questions due to it posting in a weird structure

   question one:
   In your presentation on LGBTQIA+ representation in social media, you highlighted how platforms can create visibility and support for marginalised communities. Drawing on ideas about participatory culture and online communities, do you think social media has genuinely improved LGBTQIA+ representation, or has it sometimes reduced identities to trends or “performative” support?

   question two:
   Your presentation showed both the supportive and harmful aspects of online spaces for LGBTQIA+ users. Using the ideas about online communities, digital power, and platform governance, do you think social media companies should take a stronger role in moderating harmful content, or could this create new issues around censorship and representation?

   question three:
   Your presentation highlighted how LGBTQIA+ creators and communities use social media to share personal stories and experiences. Drawing on the unit’s ideas about identity construction and self-presentation online, how do you think the pressure for visibility, engagement, and validation on platforms like TikTok or Instagram shapes the way LGBTQIA+ identities are expressed online?

   Reply
   1. 

      AshleePerry

      19/05/2026

      Question 1:

      When I think back on my presentation, I see that one of its shortcomings was that I neglected to adequately address how platform culture may negatively impact LGBTQIA+ representation in favour of emphasising the importance of visibility and community-building. According to Jenkins (2006), I continue to contend that social media has greatly enhanced LGBTQIA+ representation through participatory culture. Instead of depending just on mainstream media coverage, LGBTQIA+ people may actively create and share their own stories using platforms like TikTok and Instagram. This results in LGBTQIA+ youth feel safer and more accepted online than IRL, according to research by The Trevor Project (2023).
      I now understand, nevertheless, that more exposure does not necessarily translate into meaningful representation. Algorithms and influencer culture, which frequently reward material that is aesthetically pleasing, emotionally compelling, or monetarily lucrative, shape social media platforms. Because of this, LGBTQIA+ identities can occasionally be reduced to commercialised forms of representation or aesthetic fads. Certain LGBTQIA+ identities are more prevalent online than others. Platform algorithms frequently give preference to producers who are more conventionally handsome, white, or economically viable, whereas intersectional voices could be less visible (Abidin 2021). This implies that even when consumers can participate more actively, participatory culture does not always lead to equality.

      Overall, I would support my initial claim by stating that social media has increased LGBTQIA+ visibility and community building. However, platform economics, algorithmic influence, and performative forms of engagement—which occasionally attribute identities to trends rather than lived experiences—have shaped this progress.

      Question 2:

      One flaw in my presentation was that I didn’t properly consider the difficulties of moderation and filtering, instead concentrating mostly on the negative. Stronger moderation may safeguard LGBTQIA+ groups, but it may also inadvertently suppress the very populations it seeks to promote, according to peer input. Because social media platforms have a significant influence on public debate and online engagement, I continue to think that social media corporations should be held more accountable for filtering harmful information. Online harassment, hate speech, and targeted abuse are disproportionately experienced by LGBTQIA+ users, which might deter participation and have a detrimental impact on wellbeing (Hanckel et al. 2019). According to this viewpoint, more stringent moderation guidelines are required to provide safer online spaces. But after considering criticism from peers, I’ve concluded that moderation is neither culturally nor politically neutral.
      I would change my position to propose that moderation should concentrate more on dealing with organised abuse, hate speech, and targeted harassment rather than limiting identity-related content. Additionally, transparency is crucial. To lessen prejudice and censorship, platforms should include LGBTQIA+ communities in the creation of policies and offer more precise moderation instructions. In the end, social media corporations ought to play a bigger part in safeguarding users from danger, but moderation systems need to be carefully managed to prevent them from silencing the communities they are meant to protect.

      Question 3:

      I understood after considering peer criticism that my presentation did not adequately address the emotional and performance demands brought forth by platform culture, instead concentrating heavily on empowerment and identity expression. LGBTQIA+ people can express themselves more freely on social media, yet the need for exposure and interaction can also restrictively mould identities. Social media enables users to control identity performances depending on audience expectations and feedback, drawing on Goffman’s (1959) theory of self-presentation. To increase interaction and algorithmic visibility, LGBTQIA+ producers frequently construct their online personas through aesthetics, narrative, comedy, or trends. Likes, comments, and shares are examples of positive reinforcement that may confirm identity expression and make individuals feel accepted in online groups.
      Due to algorithms frequently rewarding visually beautiful and emotionally compelling content, producers may feel pressured to make their experiences simpler or more aesthetically pleasing in order to stay visible. According to Abidin (2021), influencer culture often transforms authenticity into a performance moulded by the expectations of the audience. Furthermore, not all LGBTQIA+ identities receive the same rewards. While some producers continue to be under-represented, others may become more visible because they conform to prevailing beauty standards or popular online aesthetics. Peer review revealed that audience preferences, platform mechanisms, and personal authenticity all influence how people portray their identities online.

      However, I continue to think that social media may be a powerful tool for exploring one’s identity. LGBTQIA+ people can experiment with self-expression in ways that might not seem secure offline, according to Fox and Ralston’s (2016) research. As a result, platforms can serve as both performance and emancipation venues. I would now highlight that platform affordances, algorithms, and audience validation have a significant impact on LGBTQIA+ identity expression online. Social media promotes identities to be acted inside systems that are motivated by engagement, popularity, and public recognition, even as it offers exposure and connections.

      References:

      Abidin, C. 2020. “Mapping Internet Celebrity on TikTok: Exploring Attention Economies and Visibility Labours.” Cultural Science Journal, 12(1), pp. 77–103. https://doi.org/10.5334/csci.140

      Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Centre. https://monoskop.org/images/1/19/Goffman_Erving_The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life.pdf

      Hanckel, Benjamin, et al. 2019. “LGBTIQ+ Young People and the Management of Identity on Social Media.” Media, Culture & Society 41 (8): 1232–48.

      Jenkins, Henry. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: NYU Press.

      The Trevor Project. 2023. “National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health.” https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2023/

      Reply