Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

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

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

The American Schism in 2025: The New Cultural Revolution

A street vendor selling public domain Donald Trump paraphernalia and souvenirs. The souvenirs are located right across the street from the White House and taken on the afternoon of July 21, 2019 near Pennslyvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

Getty Images, P_Wei

The American Schism in 2025: The New Cultural Revolution

A common point of bewilderment today among many of Trump’s “establishment” critics is the all too tepid response to Trump’s increasingly brazen shattering of democratic norms. True, he started this during his first term, but in his second, Trump seems to relish the weaponization of his presidency to go after his enemies and to brandish his corrupt dealings, all under the Trump banner (e.g. cyber currency, Mideast business dealings, the Boeing 747 gift from Qatar). Not only does Trump conduct himself with impunity but Fox News and other mainstream media outlets barely cover them at all. (And when left-leaning media do, the interest seems to wane quickly.)

Here may be the source of the puzzlement: the left intelligentsia continues to view and characterize MAGA as a political movement, without grasping its transcendence into a new dominant cultural order. MAGA rose as a counter-establishment partisan drive during Trump’s 2016 campaign and subsequent first administration; however, by the 2024 election, it became evident that MAGA was but the eye of a full-fledged cultural shift, in some ways akin to Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Should States Regulate AI?

Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-CA, speaks at an AI conference on Capitol Hill with experts

Provided

Should States Regulate AI?

WASHINGTON —- As House Republicans voted Thursday to pass a 10-year moratorium on AI regulation by states, Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-CA, and AI experts said the measure would be necessary to ensure US dominance in the industry.

“We want to make sure that AI continues to be led by the United States of America, and we want to make sure that our economy and our society realizes the potential benefits of AI deployment,” Obernolte said.

Keep ReadingShow less
The AI Race We Need: For a Better Future, Not Against Another Nation

The concept of AI hovering among the public.

Getty Images, J Studios

The AI Race We Need: For a Better Future, Not Against Another Nation

The AI race that warrants the lion’s share of our attention and resources is not the one with China. Both superpowers should stop hurriedly pursuing AI advances for the sake of “beating” the other. We’ve seen such a race before. Both participants lose. The real race is against an unacceptable status quo: declining lifespans, increasing income inequality, intensifying climate chaos, and destabilizing politics. That status quo will drag on, absent the sorts of drastic improvements AI can bring about. AI may not solve those problems but it may accelerate our ability to improve collective well-being. That’s a race worth winning.

Geopolitical races have long sapped the U.S. of realizing a better future sooner. The U.S. squandered scarce resources and diverted talented staff to close the alleged missile gap with the USSR. President Dwight D. Eisenhower rightfully noted, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” He realized that every race comes at an immense cost. In this case, the country was “spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Closeup of Software engineering team engaged in problem-solving and code analysis

Closeup of Software engineering team engaged in problem-solving and code analysis.

Getty Images, MTStock Studio

AI Is Here. Our Laws Are Stuck in the Past.

Artificial intelligence (AI) promises a future once confined to science fiction: personalized medicine accounting for your specific condition, accelerated scientific discovery addressing the most difficult challenges, and reimagined public education designed around AI tutors suited to each student's learning style. We see glimpses of this potential on a daily basis. Yet, as AI capabilities surge forward at exponential speed, the laws and regulations meant to guide them remain anchored in the twentieth century (if not the nineteenth or eighteenth!). This isn't just inefficient; it's dangerously reckless.

For too long, our approach to governing new technologies, including AI, has been one of cautious incrementalism—trying to fit revolutionary tools into outdated frameworks. We debate how century-old privacy torts apply to vast AI training datasets, how liability rules designed for factory machines might cover autonomous systems, or how copyright law conceived for human authors handles AI-generated creations. We tinker around the edges, applying digital patches to analog laws.

Keep ReadingShow less