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

Overbroad AI Export Controls Risk Forfeiting the AI Race
a black keyboard with a blue button on it

Overbroad AI Export Controls Risk Forfeiting the AI Race

The nation that wins the global AI race will hold decisive military and economic advantages. That’s why President Trump’s January 2025 AI Action Plan declared: “It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance America’s global AI dominance in order to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.”

However, AI global dominance does not just mean producing the best AI systems. It also means that the American “AI Stack” – the layered collection of tools, technologies, and frameworks that organizations use to build, train, deploy, and manage artificial intelligence applications – will become the international standard for this world-changing technology. As such, advancing a commonsense export policy for American AI chips will play a decisive role in determining whether the United States remains embedded at the core of global AI development or is gradually displaced by rival systems.

Keep ReadingShow less
Digital generated image of green semi transparent AI word on white circuit board visualizing smart technology.

What can the success of SEMATECH teach us about winning the AI race? Explore how a bold U.S. public-private partnership revived the semiconductor industry—and why a similar model could be key to advancing AI innovation today.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

A Proven Playbook for AI Leadership: Lessons from America’s Chip Comeback

Imagine waking up to this paragraph in your favorite newspaper:

The willingness of the U.S. government to eschew partisanship and undertake a bold experiment -- an experiment based on cooperation as opposed to traditional procurement, and with accountability standards rooted in trust instead of elaborate regulations -- has led the U.S. to a position of preeminence in an industry which is vital to our nation's security and economic well-being.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a person standing on a giant robotic hand.

As AI transforms the labor market, the U.S. faces a familiar challenge: preparing workers for new skills. A look at a 1991 Labor Department report reveals striking parallels.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

We’ve Been "Preparing" for the Future Since 1991—It Hasn't Worked

“Today, the demands on business and workers are different. Firms must meet world-class standards, and so must workers. Employers seek adaptability and the ability to learn and work in teams.”

Sound familiar?

Keep ReadingShow less