Cited by 230Ethics and Social Impacts of AILGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicySocial Media and Politics

For You, or For"You"?: Everyday LGBTQ+ Encounters with TikTok

Simpson, Ellen, Semaan, Bryan·2021·Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction

Abstract

Online communities provide spaces for people who are vulnerable and underserved to seek support and build community, such as LGBTQ+ people. Today, some online community spaces are mediated by algorithms. Scholarship has found that algorithms have become deeply embedded in the systems that mediate our routine engagements with the world. Yet, little is known about how these systems impact those who are most vulnerable in society. In this paper, we focus on people's everyday experiences with one algorithmic system, the short video sharing application TikTok. TikTok recently received press that it was suppressing and oppressing the identities of its growing LGBTQ+ user population through algorithmic and human moderation of LGBTQ+ creators and content related to LGBTQ+ identity. Through an interview study with 16 LGBTQ+ TikTok users, we explore people's everyday engagements and encounters with the platform. We find that TikTok's For You Page algorithm constructs contradictory identity spaces that at once support LGBTQ+ identity work and reaffirm LGBTQ+ identity, while also transgressing and violating the identities of individual users. We also find that people are developing self-organized practices in response to these transgressions and violations. We discuss the implications of algorithmic systems on people's identity work, and introduce the concept of algorithmic exclusion, and explore how people are building resilience following moments of algorithmic exclusion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3432951

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • New videos are constantly presented by default on TikTok's 'For you' page and often experienced as an endless, hard-to-anticipate flow of auto-looped videos to swipe through, prompting high engagement and commitment (the "flow experience").

    “New videos are constantly presented by default on the user’s ‘For you’ page and often experienced as an endless [32], hard-to-anticipate [34] flow of auto-looped videos to swipe through [35], prompting high levels of engagement and commitment, a phenomenon termed as the “flow experience” [36, 37].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 117 · Cited by 230

Authors
Simpson, E., & Semaan, B.
Affiliations
Syracuse University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2021-01-05
Volume
4
Issue
CSCW3
Pages
1-34
ISSN
2573-0142 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3119733760
Cited by
230
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 7
FWCI
30.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
TikTok, For You Page, algorithmic moderation, identity work, algorithmic exclusion, online communities, short video platforms, user experience, resilience

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review