Aug 2, 22 | 6 min read
Social media is not safe for LGBTQIAP
Reading time: 5 minutes
Recently, a new report by GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) showed that five of the most popular social media sites do not prioritize the safety of the LGBTQIAP+ community, and we deserve to know because we use these platforms all the time.
I am referring to TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube – by the way, social platforms that are constantly being updated with more possibilities for marketing purposes or simply for common use.
Just mentioning the names of these giants christmas island email list could be enough for us to understand that, yes, it is necessary for these brands to prioritize the safety of their users against any type of prejudice and hate speech.
But my intention here is to go further and show why and how this should be the positioning (and what our path should be, as marketing specialists, brands and users within it).
Follow us on the Rock Content LinkedIn page
Understanding the Social Media Security Index
The Social Media Safety Index (SMSI) is a study developed by GLAAD to understand and provide recommendations to the market on the safety of LGBTQIAP+ users. In the 2022 version, the report has a score to evaluate the platforms.
According to the report:
“ The platform uses twelve LGBTQIAP+-specific indicators to generate numerical scores regarding LGBTQIAP+ safety, privacy, and expression. After reviewing the platforms on measures such as explicit protections against hate and harassment for LGBTQIAP+ users, offering gender pronoun options on profiles, and banning advertising that could be harmful and/or discriminatory to LGBTQIAP+ people, all platforms scored below 50 out of a possible 100 points .”
The full report explains what companies have sadly failed to do to protect LGBTQIAP+ users and provides key recommendations for how they can change this.
As part of Meta companies , Instagram and Facebook averaged 48 and 46, respectively .
Some of the main reasons are that both Meta platforms do not have a policy protecting users from names they no longer use and specific gender errors.
Another point in the report is that " Meta also discloses only limited information about the options users have to control the collection and inference of user information related to their sexual orientation and gender identity ."
Twitter, the object of Elon Musk's desire and rejection , scored 45 out of 100. Two important points that lowered the score were:
that the bluebird platform does not have a tool for gender pronouns in the profile;
that content moderators do not have training on the needs of LGBQTIAP+ users and other vulnerable groups.
Youtube got a score of 45 out of 100 and the main reasons repeat the mistakes of its colleagues on the platform:
there is also no option for gender pronouns;
nor specific training for content moderators;
There is no policy to protect users from names they no longer use and gender errors.
Gen Z favorite TikTok also left a lot to be desired, scoring 43%. They were the only company that didn’t disclose any information about steps to have a more diverse workforce.
Why are these numbers so bad for society and the LGBTQIAP+ community?
I know it's easy to think things like, "Oh, social media should act for the safety of all users." And I agree, of course; at the same time, this doesn't mean we don't have to take a look at specific groups.
“Equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally ,” said the Greek philosopher Aristotle. Yes, I came to ancient Greece to talk about social media. But I swear this makes sense.
First, check out this data from the 2022 Online Hate and Harassment Report :
66 % of LGBTQIAP+ respondents reported having experienced harassment to date;
38% was the rate for non-LGBTQIAP+ respondents
54 % of LGBTQIAP+ respondents also reported experiencing severe harassment to date (defined as physical threats, sustained harassment, stalking, sexual harassment, doxing or groping).
26% is the rate for non-LGBTQIAP+ respondents
Now, think about the numbers
