Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

'A Little Bubble of Friends': An Analysis of LGBTQ+ Pandemic Experiences Using Reddit Data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Analyzing five LGBTQ+ subreddits before and during the pandemic, this paper argues Reddit became a semi-anonymous 'little bubble of friends' for users facing heightened discrimination and isolation.

desk verdict A useful descriptive study of LGBTQ+ Reddit topics during the pandemic, but the sentiment-shift evidence for the 'little bubble' claim does not hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15033 v1 pith:4KHZBBRH submitted 2025-07-20 cs.HC

Dhruvee Birla , Nazia Akhtar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords LGBTQ+RedditCOVID-19pandemictopicmodelingsentimentanalysisonlinesafespacesocialmediacommunitysupport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks what LGBTQ+ users talked about on Reddit during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether the platform helped them cope. Using topic modeling and sentiment analysis of five LGBTQ+-focused subreddits, it compares the pandemic period, March 2020 through August 2021, with the pre-pandemic year 2019. It finds that discussion shifted from personal topics such as coming out and relationships toward worldwide political events and legislation, while the share of positive comments rose and the share of negative comments fell. The paper argues that Reddit functioned as a 'little bubble of friends': a supportive, semi-anonymous safe space for LGBTQ+ people facing intensified discrimination and isolation.

What carries the argument

The analytical engine is a two-part computational pipeline: LDA topic modeling over post titles to detect themes, and a fine-tuned transformer-based sentiment classifier, built from RoBERTa-base, applied to comments. The comparison between 2019 and March 2020 to August 2021 is what carries the argument, and manual reading of comments links the quantitative patterns to the 'little bubble of friends' interpretation.

What would settle it

Re-run the analysis on a single archive that covers both 2019 and 2020-2021 with the same subreddit set, and count deleted and removed comments separately; if the rise in positive sentiment and the fall in negative sentiment disappear, the observed 'bubble' is an artifact of data collection rather than a real community change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that during a period of aggravated discrimination and prejudice, Reddit's LGBTQ+ subreddits served as a protective online community: not a utopia, but an alternative safe haven where vulnerable users could articulate fears, share advice, and receive support. The evidence is a temporal shift in topics, from coming out, crushes, and family issues toward Pride, world politics, anti-LGBTQ+ laws, and stigma, together with a sentiment shift in which positive comments increased, negative comments decreased, and neutral comments increased. The paper reads the rise in positive sentiment alongside the persistence of negative experiences as a sign that community members responded to distress with support.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that Reddit data from before the pandemic, collected from community dumps without the r/LGBTQ subreddit, and from during the pandemic, collected from a different third-party archive, are directly comparable, so the observed sentiment shift could be a collection artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, the pandemic saw LGBTQ+ users turn their online attention away from personal identity work and toward monitoring legislation, elections, and anti-LGBTQ+ actions worldwide.
  • The data imply that Reddit's semi-anonymous, community-based structure supported a protective function for a vulnerable population under stress.
  • The observed rise in positive and neutral sentiment alongside fewer negative comments suggests that supportive exchanges, rather than avoidance, characterized these communities during the pandemic.
  • The neutral-comment increase also implies that moderators and bots removed a share of hostile content, so apparent neutrality may partly encode deleted harassment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the sentiment shift is real, a clean extension is to re-collect both periods from a single archive with the same subreddit list; if the gap persists, the 'bubble' reading is robust to collection artifacts.
  • The paper's logic suggests a testable differential prediction: subreddits for younger users, such as r/LGBTeens, should show the strongest isolation effects because forced proximity to family and loss of school support were most acute for teens.
  • The authors' neutral-comment interpretation implies that counting [deleted] and [removed] comments before classification could convert part of the neutral rise into an explicit measure of hostile interference.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes Reddit data from five LGBTQ+-centric subreddits (r/lgbt, r/LGBTnews, r/LGBTeens, r/ainbow, r/LGBTQ) to characterize how LGBTQ+ users experienced the COVID-19 pandemic. Using LDA topic modeling on post titles and a fine-tuned RoBERTa sentiment classifier on comments, it compares the pandemic period (10 March 2020–31 August 2021) with a pre-pandemic period (January–December 2019). The authors report a thematic shift from personal topics such as coming out, relationships, and school experiences toward political discussion and news about anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and violence. They also report a small increase in positive sentiment, a decrease in negative sentiment, and an increase in neutral sentiment during the pandemic. From these findings, they argue that Reddit provided a protective “little bubble of friends” for LGBTQ+ users during a period of heightened discrimination and isolation.

Significance. The paper addresses an important and under-studied question: whether online communities served as protective resources for marginalized groups during the pandemic. Its strengths include the construction of a multi-subreddit, two-period dataset, the use of three LGBTQ+ annotators for sentiment labeling, qualitative engagement with topic-model output, and an unusually candid limitations section. If the empirical claims were fully supported, the paper would offer a useful longitudinal, community-grounded account of Reddit's role for LGBTQ+ users during a global crisis. However, the central quantitative evidence for the “little bubble of friends” argument rests on a sentiment comparison whose internal validity is currently not established, and the paper's own interpretation of the neutral-sentiment increase partially concedes that the observed negative-sentiment decrease may be an artifact. The topic-modeling results and the qualitative discussion are suggestive and worthwhile, but the quantitative pillar needs substantial re-analysis before the main claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2 and Section 6.2, Tables 4 and 5] The sentiment classifier is fine-tuned on 1,000 comments manually labeled from the pandemic corpus (200 per subreddit) and then applied unchanged to all pre-pandemic 2019 comments. No pre-pandemic labeled validation set is reported, and the two periods differ substantially in topic domain (coming-out narratives, crushes, and school experiences versus pandemic-era political and news discourse). This domain shift can systematically distort predicted sentiment proportions. Because the observed aggregate changes across the four common subreddits are small (positive roughly 18.1% to 19.4%; negative roughly 35.0% to 29.1%) and no confidence intervals or significance tests are provided, classifier bias alone could plausibly produce the reported shift. The authors should either construct a pre-pandemic labeled evaluation set, demonstrate that the classifier is robust to domain shift, or substantially weaken the quantitative claim.
  2. [Section 4, footnote 3, and Section 6.2] The pre-pandemic and pandemic datasets come from different sources (u/Watchful1's dumps for 2019; Pushshift for 2020–2021), and r/LGBTQ is absent from the pre-pandemic data. The two sources may differ in how deleted comments, removed content, bots, and user activity are captured. This matters directly for the sentiment analysis because the authors report that the model labels [deleted] and [removed by bot] comments as neutral, and the neutral share is a key part of the argument. The paper treats the two periods as directly comparable without validating that the data-collection pipelines yield equivalent representations of the same communities. At minimum, the comparison should be restricted to the four subreddits for which both periods exist and should include a sensitivity analysis that excludes deleted or removed comments.
  3. [Section 8, neutral-comment discussion] The paper explicitly concedes that the increase in neutral comments “could indirectly mean an increase in negative comments” because hostile or deleted comments are labeled neutral. Across the four common subreddits, neutral sentiment increased by roughly 4.6 percentage points while negative sentiment decreased by roughly 5.9 percentage points. If even a portion of the neutral increase were reclassified as negative, the claimed decrease in negative sentiment would weaken or reverse. The authors need to quantify how many neutral comments are deleted/removed markers, hostile comments, or other artifacts, and re-run the comparison excluding them. Without this, the claim that negative sentiment decreased is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2] The phrase “Two hundred comments were randomly generated from each subreddit” should read “randomly sampled” rather than “randomly generated,” since the comments are existing data, not synthetic text.
  2. [Section 5.2] The description of the fine-tuning procedure is unclear: 800 comments are used for training and 200 for testing, but the sentence also mentions five-fold cross-validation. Please clarify how the cross-validation folds relate to the fixed 200-comment test set.
  3. [Tables 4 and 5] Table 5 includes r/LGBTQ, but Table 4 does not. The table headers and captions should make this asymmetry explicit, since the aggregate comparison across periods is only meaningful for the four overlapping subreddits.
  4. [Section 6.1] The paper reports different optimal hyperparameters for the two LDA models (alpha/beta settings differ between periods) but does not discuss whether this difference affects the comparability of the resulting topic structures. A brief comment on this would help readers assess the topic shift.
  5. [Section 8] The example neutral comment from r/ainbow (“Don’t bring up privilege...”) appears to have a confrontational tone; using it as an example of neutral sentiment may confuse readers. Consider selecting a more clearly neutral example or explicitly explaining why the model and annotators treated it as neutral.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the empirical pipeline is self-contained; internal-validity concerns are not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is observational and self-contained: it collects Reddit comments, runs LDA topic models on post titles, fine-tunes RoBERTa on 1,000 manually labeled comments, and compares sentiment proportions across pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. The central claim—that Reddit offered a 'little bubble of friends'—is an interpretive synthesis of these results, not a quantity obtained by construction from the inputs. The sentiment classifier is trained on human labels (Section 5.2) and then applied to both corpora; this is standard supervised classification, and the training labels do not encode the paper's conclusion. The topic labels are qualitative interpretations of LDA keyword clusters, not definitions of the outcome. No load-bearing step invokes a result from the authors' prior work, and no parameter is fitted to the quantity later presented as a prediction. Section 8's caveat that increasing neutral comments could indirectly mean increasing hostile comments, and the data-source comparability limitation in Section 4, footnote 3, are threats to internal validity or generalizability, not circularity; they do not reduce the argument to its own assumptions. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The central result depends mainly on data comparability, model validity, and subjective topic interpretation, rather than free parameters in a formal derivation.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of LDA topics = 20 (both before and during pandemic)
    Chosen by hyperparameter tuning to optimize coherence and perplexity; affects topic granularity and all downstream topic interpretations.
  • LDA alpha = 0.5 (during pandemic), 0.01 (before pandemic)
    Tuned along with beta to maximize coherence; a modeling choice that shapes topic mixtures.
  • LDA beta = 0.01 (during pandemic), 0.5 (before pandemic)
    Tuned along with alpha to maximize coherence; affects topic word distributions.
  • LDA passes/iterations = 50 passes (during), 200 iterations (before)
    Chosen to optimize coherence and convergence; affects stability of topic assignments.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Reddit posts and comments are genuine expressions of LGBTQ+ users' experiences and identities
    The entire analysis treats user-generated content as authentic evidence of community experiences (Sections 1 and 4).
  • domain assumption Pre-pandemic and pandemic datasets are comparable despite different collection sources and missing r/LGBTQ
    Section 4 footnote 3 notes the pre-pandemic dumps lacked r/LGBTQ data, yet the temporal comparison treats the periods as directly comparable.
  • domain assumption Sentiment categories from the fine-tuned RoBERTa model are valid proxies for community well-being
    Section 5.2 and 6.2 use the model labels to infer emotional states, but no validation beyond accuracy/F1 is provided.
  • domain assumption LDA topic interpretations (labels like 'Pride Celebrations') are meaningful and accurate
    Section 6.1 infers topic labels subjectively from top keywords; no external validation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 'A Little Bubble of Friends': An Analysis of LGBTQ+ Pandemic Experiences Using Reddit Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4KHZBBRH

@misc{pith2026250715033,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 'A Little Bubble of Friends': An Analysis of LGBTQ+ Pandemic Experiences Using Reddit Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4KHZBBRH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15033}
}
read the original abstract

Social media was one of the most popular forms of communication among young people with digital access during the pandemic. Consequently, crucial debates and discussions about the pandemic crisis have also developed on social media platforms, making them a great primary source to study the experiences of specific groups and communities during the pandemic. This study involved research using LDA topic modeling and sentiment analysis on data obtained from the social media platform Reddit to understand the themes and attitudes in circulation within five subreddits devoted to LGBTQ+ experiences and issues. In the process, we attempt to make sense of the role that Reddit may have played in the lives of LGBTQ+ people who were online during the pandemic, and whether this was marked by any continuities or discontinuities from before the pandemic period.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ahmed Al-Rawi, Karen Grepin, Xiaosu Li, Rosemary Morgan, Clare Wenham, and Julia Smith. 2021. Investigating public discourses around gender and COVID- 19: a social media analysis of Twitter data. Journal of Healthcare Informatics Research 5 (2021), 249–269

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Aldinata, Axell Mondrian Soesanto, Vincent Christian Chandra, and Derwin Suhartono. 2023. Sentiments comparison on Twitter about LGBT. Procedia Computer Science 216, C (2023), 765–773

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Titan Alon, Matthias Doepke, Jane Olmstead-Rumsey, and Michèle Tertilt. 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality . Technical Report. National Bureau of economic research

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Yanping Bao, Yankun Sun, Shiqiu Meng, Jie Shi, and Lin Lu. 2020. 2019-nCoV epidemic: address mental health care to empower society. The lancet 395, 10224 (2020), e37–e38

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Rena Bivens. 2015. Under the hood: The software in your feminist approach. Feminist Media Studies 15, 4 (2015), 714–717

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    David M Blei, Andrew Y Ng, and Michael I Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning research 3, Jan (2003), 993–1022

    2003

  7. [7]

    Linda L Carli. 2020. Women, gender equality and COVID-19. Gender in manage- ment: an International Journal 35, 7/8 (2020), 647–655

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Shelley L Craig, Andrew D Eaton, Lauren B McInroy, Vivian WY Leung, and Sreedevi Krishnan. 2021. Can social media participation enhance LGBTQ+ youth well-being? Development of the social media benefits scale.Social Media+ Society 7, 1 (2021), 2056305121988931

    work page 2021

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Dr Bharat Dhiman. 2023. Impact of Social Media Platforms on LGBTQA Community: A Critical Review. A vailable at SSRN 4410280 (2023). https: //doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4410280

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Marla E Eisenberg, Rebecca Puhl, and Ryan J Watson. 2020. Family weight teasing, LGBTQ attitudes, and well-being among LGBTQ adolescents. Family & Community Health 43, 1 (2020), 17–25

    2020

  3. [11]

    Jessica N Fish, John Salerno, Natasha D Williams, R Gordon Rinderknecht, Kelsey J Drotning, Liana Sayer, and Long Doan. 2021. Sexual minority dis- parities in health and well-being as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic differ by sexual identity. LGBT health 8, 4 (2021), 263–272

    2021

  4. [12]

    Veny Amilia Fitri, Rachmadita Andreswari, and Muhammad Azani Hasibuan

  5. [13]

    Luisa S Flor, Joseph Friedman, Cory N Spencer, John Cagney, Alejandra Arrieta, Molly E Herbert, Caroline Stein, Erin C Mullany, Julia Hon, Vedavati Patwardhan, et al. 2022. Quantifying the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender equality on health, social, and economic indi...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Zhiwei Gao, Shuntaro Yada, Shoko Wakamiya, and Eiji Aramaki. 2020. Offensive language detection on video live streaming chat. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on computational linguistics . 1936–1940

    2020

  7. [15]

    Jorge Gato, Daniela Leal, and Daniel Seabra. 2020. When home is not a safe haven: Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBTQ adolescents and young adults in Portugal. Psicologia (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Jewel Gausman and Ana Langer. 2020. Sex and gender disparities in the COVID- 19 pandemic. Journal of Women’s Health 29, 4 (2020), 465–466

    2020

  9. [17]

    Jen Jack Gieseking. 2018. Size matters to lesbians, too: Queer feminist inter- ventions into the scale of big data. The Professional Geographer 70, 1 (2018), 150–156

    2018

  10. [18]

    Raul Macias Gil, Tracey L Freeman, Trini Mathew, Ravina Kullar, Thomas Fekete, Anais Ovalle, Don Nguyen, Angélica Kottkamp, Jin Poon, Jasmine R Marcelin, et al. 2021. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) communities and the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic:...

    2021

  11. [19]

    GLAAD. 2024. Social Media Safety Index 2024. https://assets.glaad.org/m/ 4a1d7323a720f2b9/original/2024-Social-Media-Safety-Index.pdf. Accessed: 2024- 08-25

    2024

  12. [20]

    Ashish Goel and Latika Gupta. 2020. Social media in the times of COVID-19. JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology 26, 6 (2020), 220–223

    2020

  13. [21]

    Sheela Gole and Bharat Tidke. 2015. A survey of big data in social media using data mining techniques. In 2015 International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems. IEEE, 1–6

    2015

  14. [22]

    Kevin Guyan. 2022. Fixing the Wrong Problems: Queer Communities and the False Promise of Unbiased and Equal Data Systems. European Data Protection Law Review 8, 4 (2022), 455–461

    2022

  15. [23]

    Pamuela Halliwell. 2018. The psychological & emotional effects of discrimination within the LGBTQ, transgender, & non-binary communities. T. Jefferson L. Rev. 41 (2018), 222

    2018

  16. [24]

    Tyler J Hatchel, Kaveri Subrahmanyam, and Michelle Birkett. 2017. The digital development of LGBTQ youth: Identity, sexuality, and intimacy. In Identity, sexuality, and relationships among emerging adults in the digital age . IGI Global, 61–74

    2017

  17. [25]

    Billy Tusker Haworth, Luan Carpes Barros Cassal, and Tiago de Paula Mu- niz. 2023. ‘No-one knows how to care for LGBT community like LGBT do’1: LGBTQIA+ experiences of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom and Brazil.Disasters 47, 3 (2023), 584–607

    2023

  18. [26]

    Alyssa Hiebert and Katherine Kortes-Miller. 2021. Finding Home in Online Community: Exploring TikTok as a Support for Gender and Sexual Minority Youth throughout COVID-19. Journal of LGBT Youth 20, 4 (2021), 800–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2021.2009953

    2021

  19. [27]

    John Hiscott, Magdalini Alexandridi, Michela Muscolini, Evelyne Tassone, Enrico Palermo, Maria Soultsioti, and Alessandra Zevini. 2020. The global impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Cytokine & growth factor reviews 53 (2020), 1–9

    2020

  20. [28]

    Hoiriyah Hoiriyah, Nurul Qomariya, Aang Kisnu Darmawan, Miftahul Walid, and Yuri Efenie. 2023. Sentiment Analysis on LGBT issues in Indonesia with Lexicon-Based and Support Vector Machine Algorithms. Jurnal Pilar Nusa Mandiri 19, 1 (2023), 27–36

    2023

  21. [29]

    Olaf Jenzen and Ian Karl. 2014. Make, Share, Care: Social Media and LGBTQ Youth Engagement. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology 5 (2014). https://doi.org/10.7264/N39P2ZX3 Accessed: 06 October 2023

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    Stephen Juwono, Jorge Luis Flores Anato, Allison L Kirschbaum, Nicholas Metheny, Milada Dvorakova, Shayna Skakoon-Sparling, David M Moore, Daniel Grace, Trevor A Hart, Gilles Lambert, et al. 2024. Prevalence, Determinants, and Trends in the Experience and Perpetration of Intim...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Abu Naweem Khan and Rahat Ibn Rafiq. 2022. A Preliminary Analysis of Twit- ter’s LGBTQ+ Discussions. In Annual International Conference on Information Management and Big Data . Springer, 1–17. A Little Bubble of Friends

    2022

  24. [32]

    Craig Konnoth. 2020. Supporting LGBT communities in the COVID-19 pandemic. 2020). Assessing Legal Responses to COVID-19. Boston: Public Health Law Watch, U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper 20-47 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Joseph G Kosciw, Caitlin M Clark, Nhan L Truong, and Adrian D Zongrone

  26. [34]

    Navin Kumar, Kamila Janmohamed, Kate Nyhan, Laura Forastiere, Wei-Hong Zhang, Anna Kågesten, Maximiliane Uhlich, Afia Sarpong Frimpong, Sarah Van de Velde, Joel M Francis, et al. 2021. Sexual health (excluding reproductive health, intimate partner violence and gender-based vio...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Prasanna Kumar Kumaresan, Rahul Ponnusamy, Ruba Priyadharshini, Paul Buite- laar, and Bharathi Raja Chakravarthi. 2023. Homophobia and transphobia detec- tion for low-resourced languages in social media comments. Natural Language Processing Journal 5 (2023), 100041

    2023

  28. [36]

    Koen Leurs. 2017. Feminist data studies: Using digital methods for ethical, reflexive and situated socio-cultural research. Feminist Review 115, 1 (2017), 130–154

    2017

  29. [37]

    C. Li, L. J. Chen, X. Chen, et al. 2020. Retrospective Analysis of the Possibility of Predicting the COVID-19 Outbreak from Internet Searches and Social Media Data, China, 2020. Euro Surveill 25 (2020), 2000199. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560- 7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000199

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Carmen H Logie and Janet M Turan. 2020. How do we balance tensions between COVID-19 public health responses and stigma mitigation? Learning from HIV research. AIDS and Behavior 24 (2020), 2003–2006

    2020

  31. [39]

    Daniel Loureiro, Francesco Barbieri, Leonardo Neves, Luis Espinosa Anke, and Jose Camacho-Collados. 2022. TimeLMs: Diachronic language models from Twitter. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03829 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    James J Lucas, Stéphane L Bouchoucha, Rojan Afrouz, Kirk Reed, and Sharon L Brennan-Olsen. 2022. LGBTQ+ loss and grief in a cis-heteronormative pandemic: a qualitative evidence synthesis of the COVID-19 literature. Qualitative Health Research 32, 14 (2022), 2102–2117

    2022

  33. [41]

    Leanna Lucero. 2017. Safe spaces in online places: Social media and LGBTQ youth. Multicultural Education Review 9, 2 (2017), 117–128

    2017

  34. [42]

    Andrew N Mason, John Narcum, and Kevin Mason. 2021. Social media marketing gains importance after Covid-19. Cogent Business & Management 8, 1 (2021), 1870797

    2021

  35. [43]

    Lauren B McInroy and Shelley L Craig. 2017. Perspectives of LGBTQ emerging adults on the depiction and impact of LGBTQ media representation. Journal of youth studies 20, 1 (2017), 32–46

    2017

  36. [44]

    Alexey N Medvedev, Renaud Lambiotte, and Jean-Charles Delvenne. 2019. The anatomy of Reddit: An overview of academic research. Dynamics on and of Complex Networks III: Machine Learning and Statistical Physics Approaches 10 (2019), 183–204

    2019

  37. [45]

    NBC News. 2022. Social Media Platforms Aren’t Doing Enough to Keep LGBTQ People Safe, Group Says. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out- news/social-media-platforms-arent-enough-keep-lgbtq-people-safe-group- says-rcna37319. Accessed: 2024-08-25

    2022

  38. [46]

    Nielsen. 2022. June 2022 LGBTQ+ Report. https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/2/2022/07/June-2022-LGBTQ-Report.pdf. Accessed: 2024-08-25

    2022

  39. [47]

    World Health Organization et al. 2022. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. January 30 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Gregory Phillips II, Dylan Felt, Megan M Ruprecht, Xinzi Wang, Jiayi Xu, Esrea Pérez-Bill, Rocco M Bagnarol, Jason Roth, Caleb W Curry, and Lauren B Beach

  41. [49]

    Devan Rosen. 2022. The social media debate: Unpacking the social, psychological, and cultural effects of social media . Routledge

    2022

  42. [50]

    Bonnie Ruberg and Spencer Ruelos. 2020. Data for queer lives: How LGBTQ gender and sexuality identities challenge norms of demographics. Big Data & Society 7, 1 (2020), 2053951720933286

    2020

  43. [51]

    LGBT health 7, 6 (2020), 279–282

    Addressing the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on sexual and gender minority populations in the United States: actions toward equity. LGBT health 7, 6 (2020), 279–282

    2020

  44. [52]

    Koustuv Saha, Sang Chan Kim, Manikanta D Reddy, Albert J Carter, Eva Sharma, Oliver L Haimson, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2019. The language of LGBTQ+ minority stress experiences on social media. Proceedings of the ACM on human- computer interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–22

    2019

  45. [53]

    SEMrush. 2024. SEMrush - Online Visibility Management Platform. https: //www.semrush.com/. Accessed: 2024-08-25

    2024

  46. [54]

    Stephen T Russell, Meg D Bishop, Victoria C Saba, Isaac James, and Salvatore Ioverno. 2021. Promoting school safety for LGBTQ and all students. Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences 8, 2 (2021), 160–166

    2021

  47. [55]

    Philipp Singer, Fabian Flöck, Clemens Meinhart, Elias Zeitfogel, and Markus Strohmaier. 2014. Evolution of reddit: from the front page of the internet to a self-referential community?. In Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on world wide web . 517–522

    2014

  48. [56]

    Axell Mondrian Soesanto, Vincent Christian Chandra, Derwin Suhartono, et al

  49. [57]

    Chayanika Shah, Raj Merchant, Shals Mahajan, and Smriti Nevatia. 2015. No outlaws in the gender galaxy . Zubaan

    2015

  50. [58]

    Rob Stephenson, Tanaka MD Chavanduka, Matthew T Rosso, Stephen P Sullivan, Renée A Pitter, Alexis S Hunter, and Erin Rogers. 2022. COVID-19 and the risk for increased intimate partner violence among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the United States.Journal...

    2022

  51. [59]

    Hannah R Stevens, Irena Acic, and Sofia Rhea. 2021. Natural language processing insight into LGBTQ+ youth mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal content analysis of anxiety-provoking topics and trends in emotion in LGBTeens microcommunity subreddit. JMIR publ...

    2021

  52. [60]

    Zhasmina Tacheva and Srividya Ramasubramanian. 2024. Challenging AI empire: Toward a decolonial and queer framework of data resurgence.Authorea Preprints (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Lara Stemple, Portia Karegeya, and Sofia Gruskin. 2016. Human rights, gender, and infectious disease: from HIV/AIDS to Ebola. Human Rights Quarterly 38, 4 (2016), 993–1021

    2016

  54. [62]

    Kathie Treen, Hywel Williams, Saffron O’Neill, and Travis G Coan. 2022. Dis- cussion of climate change on Reddit: Polarized discourse or deliberative debate? Environmental Communication 16, 5 (2022), 680–698

    2022

  55. [63]

    Emily RM Trivette. 2023. The views of LGBTQ+ individuals on LGBTQ+ rep- resentation in UK and US television media . Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Birmingham

    2023

  56. [64]

    Sara Wallach, Alex Garner, Sean Howell, Tyler Adamson, Stefan Baral, and Chris Beyrer. 2020. Address exacerbated health disparities and risks to LGBTQ+ individuals during COVID-19. Health and human rights 22, 2 (2020), 313

    2020

  57. [65]

    Dimple Tiwari and Manoj Kumar. 2020. Social media data mining techniques: A survey. In Information and Communication Technology for Sustainable Develop- ment: Proceedings of ICT4SD 2018 . Springer, 183–194

    2020

  58. [66]

    Clare Wenham, Julia Smith, Sara E Davies, Huiyun Feng, Karen A Grépin, Sophie Harman, Asha Herten-Crabb, and Rosemary Morgan. 2020. Women are most affected by pandemics—lessons from past outbreaks. Nature 583, 7815 (2020), 194–198

    2020

  59. [67]

    World Health Organization. 2023. WHO COVID-19 dashboard. https://data.who. int/dashboards/covid19/vaccines?n=c. Accessed: 2024-01-13

    2023

  60. [68]

    World Population Review. n.d.. Reddit Users by Country 2023. https:// worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/reddit-users-by-country. Ac- cessed: 31 July 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    Evan Weissburg, Arya Kumar, and Paramveer S Dhillon. 2022. Judging a book by its cover: Predicting the marginal impact of title on Reddit post popularity. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , Vol. 16. 1098–1108

    2022

  62. [70]

    friends" + 0.101*

    Andrea Zeffiro. 2019. Towards a queer futurity of data. Journal of Cultural Analytics 4, 1 (2019). A Topic Modeling Results A.1 Time Period I (10 March 2020 – 31 August 2021) From the topic models trained on the optimal hyperparameters, we interpreted the topics based on a com...

    2019

  63. [73]

    Yunhao Yuan, Gaurav Verma, Barbara Keller, and Talayeh Aledavood. 2023. Minority stress experienced by LGBTQ online communities during the COVID- 19 pandemic. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 17. 936–947

    2023

  64. [2019]

    Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019), 765–772

    Sentiment analysis of social media Twitter with case of Anti-LGBT cam- paign in Indonesia using Naïve Bayes, decision tree, and random forest algorithm. Procedia Computer Science 161 (2019), 765–772

    2019

  65. [2020]

    A Report from GLSEN

    The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth in Our Nation’s Schools. A Report from GLSEN. ERIC

    2019

  66. [2023]

    Procedia Computer Science 216 (2023), 765–773

    Sentiments comparison on Twitter about LGBT. Procedia Computer Science 216 (2023), 765–773

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.