Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Amid Trump’s War on LGBTQ+ Teens, Social Media Platforms Must Step Up

Opinion

Amid Trump’s War on LGBTQ+ Teens, Social Media Platforms Must Step Up
rainbow drawing
Photo by Alex Jackman on Unsplash

With Trump’s war on inclusion, life has suddenly become even more dangerous for LGBTQ youth. The CDC has removed health information for LGBTQ+ people from its website—including information about creating safe, supportive spaces. Meanwhile, Trump’s executive order, couched in hateful and inaccurate language, has stopped gender-affirming care.

Sadly, Meta’s decision in January to end fact-checking threatens to make social media even less safe for vulnerable teens. To stop the spread of misinformation, Meta and other social media platforms must commit to protecting young users.


Just a few months ago, Meta appeared to be taking a step in the right direction, launching its Teen Accounts with promises of safer online spaces. But the company’s recent decision to end fact-checking on its platforms threatens to undo all that progress—especially for teens who are already vulnerable. Among the most at risk are LGBTQ+ young people, whose safety and well-being are further endangered when harmful misinformation goes unchecked.

Adolescence is a time of self-discovery, and for many young people, that means exploring questions about their sexual identity. Imagine a teen scrolling through their social media feed—curious to learn more about interpersonal relationships and sexual identity—searching the internet to answer any questions that they may have in a place that they perceive as safer than their home or school. But that space is anything but safe now when untrue statements like “LGBTQ+ is a mental illness” spread unchecked.

These scientifically debunked statements aren’t just factual errors easily correctible by other online users—they are direct assaults on teens’ sense of self, as well as their mental health and well-being. Studies show that victimization, including anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, strongly predicts self-harm and suicidal thoughts and behaviors among LGBTQ+ young people. Young people may internalize these harmful ideas, leading to confusion, shame, or even mental health struggles like anxiety, depression, or suicide ideation. This false narrative not only stigmatizes LGBTQ+ young people and impacts their mental health but also creates an environment where young people may feel compelled to hide their identities or potentially seek harmful treatments unsupported by evidence. Adults, including those who run tech companies, are responsible for creating safe and positive online experiences for young people.

We already have experts working on this issue, too. For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics—our country’s leading group of children’s doctors—studies healthy social media use through its Center of Excellence on Social Media and Youth Mental Health. Its co-directors, Dr. Megan Moreno and Dr. Jenny Radesky, specifically recommend platform policies that prevent the spread of untrustworthy and hateful content and more user control over settings, which are often buried.

At first, Meta seemed to be listening, instituting Teen Accounts with built-in features such as a sleep mode and limits on sensitive content. Even better, they planned to improve these features and include young people in the process. However, removing fact-checking on their platform undermines these efforts, increasing teens’ exposure to inaccurate, misleading, and/or harmful information. This contradiction sends a troubling message: while Meta claims to prioritize the safety and well-being of young users, it simultaneously dismantles one of the key mechanisms ensuring information integrity.

To be sure, Mark Zuckerberg framed his decision as a defense of “free expression” and a move away from “too much censorship.” On the surface, this sounds like something teens would wholeheartedly embrace. But in fact, the elimination of fact-checking, and the dismantling of safeguards for young users directly contradict what teens themselves deserve and desire. Young people, among the most active users of social media, consistently express a desire for safer online spaces. According to the Pew Research Center, the majority of teens prioritize feeling safe over being able to speak their minds freely; they also want enhanced safety features and content moderation. Both freedom of expression and enhanced safety features are crucial, but ensuring a safe and supportive online environment is essential to protecting teens’ well-being while fostering open dialogue.

When even teens call for more safeguards, adults—including those who run social media companies—have a moral obligation to respond. If Zuckerberg decides to scrap safeguards in fact-checking in favor of “Community Notes,” we must ensure that “Community Notes” strategies are evidence-based, expert-informed, youth-centered, and community-driven. According to research, social media companies must prioritize the following three approaches to ensure young people’s safety online:

Partnering with LGBTQ+ and other advocacy groups from marginalized communities to ensure that information shared is truthful, accurate, and rooted in the lived experiences of marginalized communities. For example, GLAAD recently released a report detailing harmful content on Meta’s platform, including the use of violent language toward LGBTQ+ individuals and the use of severe anti-trans slurs, among many others. This report prompted them to pen a letter with specific calls to action on addressing misinformation. The recommendations are there. Work with them.

Investing in youth-centered approaches. As an example, researchers at the MIT Media Lab launched Scratch (i.e., an online community for children that teaches them coding and computer science) in 2007. They implemented a governance strategy to moderate content proactively and reactively. Through youth-centered Community Guidelines and adult moderator s, they address hate speech and remove it immediately. Appropriately trained moderators serve as essential gatekeepers, ensuring that platforms remain spaces for healthy dialogue rather than havens for toxicity for young people.

Linking young people to evidence-based, culturally informed mental health resources at every opportunity. Young people are eager for online support (e.g., online therapy, apps, and social media) to manage their mental health, and they deserve access to accurate, safe, and affirming information—free from misinformation, exploitation, and harmful bias. Ensuring LGBTQ+ young people have access to mental health resources, especially to intervene early, is critical.

Zuckerberg framed the end of fact-checking as protecting free speech. Instead, he’s protecting hate speech and misinformation at the cost of young people’s wellbeing—the very thing Teen Accounts were meant to safeguard. If Zuckerberg is sincere about improving Meta’s products for young people, then Teen Accounts must be accountable—to the truth.

Claudia-Santi F. Fernandes, Ed.D., is an assistant clinical professor at the Yale Child Study Center. She is a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project.



Read More

AI, Reality, and the Pygmalion Effect: Why Human Judgment Still Matters
Woman typing on laptop at wooden table with breakfast.

AI, Reality, and the Pygmalion Effect: Why Human Judgment Still Matters

When the World goes Mad, one must accept Madness as Sanity, since Sanity is, in the last analysis, nothing but the Madness on which the Whole World happens to agree. (George Bernard Shaw)

Among the most prolific and famous playwrights of the 20th century, Shaw wrote “Pygmalion,” the play upon which “My Fair Lady” was based. Pygmalion was a Greek mythological figure, a sculptor from Cyprus, who fell in love with the statue he created. Aphrodite turned his sculpture into a real woman, promoting the idea that the “created” is greater than the “creator.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit
a sign with a question mark and a question mark drawn on it

Humanoid Educators Will Widen Inequality—And Only Tech Overlords Will Benefit

In March, First Lady Melania Trump hosted an AI-powered humanoid robot at the White House during the Fostering the Future Together Global Coalition Summit, and introduced Plato, a humanoid educator marketed as a replacement for teachers that could homeschool children. A humanoid educator that speaks multiple languages, is always available, and draws on a vast store of information could expand access in meaningful ways. But the evidence suggests that the risks outweigh the benefits, that adoption will be uneven, and that the families most likely to adopt Plato will bear those risks disproportionately.

Research on excessive technology use in childhood has found consistent results. Young children and teenagers who spend too much time with screens are more likely to experience reduced physical activity, lower attention spans, depression, and social anxiety. On the same day that Melania Trump introduced Plato, a California jury ruled that Meta and YouTube contributed to anxiety and depression in a woman who began using social media at age 6, a reminder that the consequences of under-tested technology on children can be severe and long-lasting.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less