Virtue SignalingGLAAD gives social media giants poor grades over lack of protections for LGBTQ users

submitted by NutterButterFlutterStill waving into the void from (npr.org)

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Horror-SwordfishI don't get how flairs work 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The idea that you can put yourself out there on a public platform and receive no criticism for anything whatsoever is so bizarre to me. If I went out to a public park, stood on a soapbox, and started shouting about how I hate straight people, I would expect to have at least some people getting upset with me.

Why should TikTok or Facebook or Instagram be any different? If you have a completely private profile and only share things with people you know in real life (which really should be what social media is for, in my opinion), then the chances that you are going to be harassed on social media would seemingly be pretty low. If you have a completely public profile and are allowing yourself to be seen by just anyone, then you should expect that people with other viewpoints will criticize yours.

Look, I'm not saying that people deserve to be harassed on social media. But a public social media profile is not and will never be a safe space.

I also find myself wondering exactly what these respondents consider "harassment" and what their posts were that received a bunch of "hate." It's sad to me that I feel the need to be hyper-suspicious of this kind of thing, but what are the chances that some of those respondents posted something highly divisive and vitriolic and the "hate" they received was just someone not toeing the party line?

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I feel like that what you expect from "hate" against LGBTQWTF users rarely happens. Instead it will be people either wanting to discuss their takes such as how a lesbian isn't into girldicks nor she isn't just into "non-men" and receiving poor reaction to that gospel. That will be surely seen as hate attack according to them.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In other words, poor grades for not censoring people enough? Sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are incredibly censorious. There should be no censorship at all, except for setting age limits on certain content. The people in charge of GLAAD are extremely authoritarian and sane LGB people need to disavow them.

[–]IridescentAnacondastrictly dickly 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In other words, poor grades for not censoring people enough?

Nailed it.

[–]NutterButterFlutterStill waving into the void[S] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This is because of the levels of hate and harassment they face while on platforms such as Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube, according to GLAAD.

Reddit is suspiciously absent from this list, despite being what, the #7 or #9 platform in the world? Hmmmmm, wonder why...

[–]JulienMayfair 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Reddit did as their trans overlords demanded.

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Is this a joke? Stating simple biological facts is enough to get you banned from Youtube or Twitter and GLAAD out here drinking crazy juice thinking that's not enough? What do they want to pre-ban people before they say the things?

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you click the original survey they have action items that they want each company to do. Basically they are mad that people aren't automatically banned for "deadnaming".

[–]Femaleisnthateful 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's in the NPR article, too. Demanding that social media platforms invoke prohibitions against 'deadnaming' and 'misgendering' (ie. recognizing sex) and fearmongering about hate and violence.

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is useless data. It's basically 3 levels of self reporting.

Number 1 it asks users to self report their opinion of the social media site which is meaningless.

Number 2 it allows users to self identity as "lgbtqiaetc"

Number 3 a survey based study self selects for people who want to fill out the survey which dramatically increases the number of users who have a grudge against the thing being surveyed.

.

Additionally, 40% of LGBTQ adults, as well as 49% of transgender and nonbinary people, do not feel welcomed and safe on social media.

This right here shows both how poorly the data is presented and how it isn't actually a gay issue. It says 40% of gays + TQ do not feel "safe" but if they pull out just TQ it's 49%. But they don't break down the numbers or mention how LGB feel.

[–]MarkJeffersonTight defenses and we draw the line 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This right here shows both how poorly the data is presented and how it isn't actually a gay issue. It says 40% of gays + TQ do not feel "safe" but if they pull out just TQ it's 49%. But they don't break down the numbers or mention how LGB feel.

Kinda a lie by omission. I don't expect them to ever break down their stats. It would just reveal just how institutionally captured the whole thing is, and they can't have that.

Anyway, I still don't get how the Q is it's own letter. Isn't the whole thing supposed to be "queer"?

[–]Q-Continuum-kin 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

It was but now it seems like there are more straight people under Q than anything else. I was dragged to a daytime pride event this year and it seemed like 90% of the people there were just morbidly obese with blue hair.

[–]yousaythosethingsFind and Replace "gatekeeping" with "having boundaries" 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Indeed. We should just start saying LGBTH or LGBTS with H being heterosexual and S being straight or spicy heterosexual.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

why should i listen to GLAAD? They transphobically refuse to change their name to GLTQIA2SP+AAD

[–]automoderatorHuman-Exclusionary Radical Overlord[M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

RIP Snappy, I AM THE NEW GOD!

Click below to view and/or archive snapshots:

If this comment is being added for sites which cannot be usefully archived - for example, video hosts or an existing archive site - please let the Moderators know by sending ModMail. REPLIES TO THIS COMMENT ARE NOT SEEN BY MODS

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this sub if you have any questions or concerns.