The role of algorithms in social media activism: A case study of LGBTQ+ in Lithuania

Migle Eleonora Cernikovaite; Žaneta  Karazijienė

doi:10.12795/IROCAMM.2026.v09.i01.09

Autores/as

Ph.D. Migle Eleonora Cernikovaite Mykolas Romeris University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8307-3242
Ph.D. Žaneta Karazijienė Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VILNIUS TECH) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7979-6547

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12795/IROCAMM.2026.v09.i01.09

Palabras clave:

Algoritmos de redes sociales, Activismo LGBTQ+, Burbujas de filtros, Uniones civiles, Percepción pública

Resumen

Introducción: Este estudio explora el papel de los algoritmos de los medios sociales en las acciones de activismo en los medios sociales para la representación de las uniones civiles LGBTQ+. Las plataformas de medios sociales, en particular Facebook, categorizan a los usuarios de manera que los exponen principalmente a contenidos específicos, lo que representan las burbujas de los medios sociales y las cámaras de eco, que pueden distorsionar la percepción pública y amplificar los puntos de vista extremos. Metodología: Utilizando una combinación de análisis de contenido cualitativo y cuantitativo, junto con una revisión de la literatura académica pertinente, esta investigación identifica los temas predominantes dentro de estos entornos digitales. Resultados: Los resultados revelan la existencia de distintas burbujas de filtros en torno al tema de las uniones civiles entre personas del mismo sexo, caracterizadas por una falta de neutralidad y una polarización de las opiniones. Seis temas clave surgieron del análisis de contenido: un encuadre populista de la legislación, la posición de Lituania en un contexto global, las percepciones de la familia, las implicaciones legales y sociales, el discurso sobre la igualdad de derechos y protecciones, y las opiniones externas de la comunidad LGBTQ+. Discusión: El análisis demuestra que, si bien existen claras divisiones entre partidarios y detractores de la legislación sobre uniones civiles, las perspectivas neutrales están en gran medida ausentes, y las fuentes de los medios de comunicación se mantienen pasivas e ineficaces a la hora de facilitar un diálogo equilibrado. Este estudio pone de relieve el papel crucial de los algoritmos en la configuración del discurso social y las implicaciones para el activismo LGBTQ+ en Lituania.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Anjum, A. & Katarya, R. (2024). Hate speech, toxicity detection in online social media: a recent survey of state of the art and opportunities. International Journal of Information Security, 23(1), 577-608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-023-00755-2

Bom, I., Coffey-Glover, L., Jones, L., Mills, S. and Paterson, L. (2015). Implicit homophobic argument structure: Equal-marriage discourse in The Moral Maze. Journal of Language and Sexuality, 4(1), 102–137. https://doi.org/10.1075/jls.4.1.04mil

Chandra, Y. and Shang, L. (2019). Inductive Coding. In: Qualitative Research Using R: A Systematic Approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3170-1_8

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge Falmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203224342

Diakopoulos, N. (2019). Automating the News: How Algorithms Are Rewriting the Media. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674239302

Domingos, P. (2018). The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World. First paperback edition. Basic Books.

Edelson, L., Nguyen, M.-K., Goldstein, I., Goga, O., Lauinger, T. and McCoy, D. (2021). Far-Right News Sources on Facebook More Engaging. Medium. bit.ly/3CZucY4

Erlingsson, C. and Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A Hands-On Guide to Doing Content Analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001

Everett, C.M. (2019). Free speech on privately-owned fora: A discussion on speech freedoms and policy for social media. Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 28. https://bit.ly/3OO5JIh

Flick, U. (2018). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Franz, D., Marsh, H. E., Chen, J. I. and Teo, A. R. (2019). Using Facebook for Qualitative Research: A Brief Primer. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(8), e13544. https://doi.org/10.2196/13544

Geschke, D., Lorenz, J. and Holtz, P. (2019). The triple-filter bubble: Using agent-based modelling to test a meta-theoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(1), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12286

Hoffmann, S., Taylor, E. and Bradshaw, S. (2019). The Market of Disinformation. OxTEC: Oxford Technology & Elections Commission. https://bit.ly/3CPq0uc

Hull, K. E. (2006). Same-Sex Marriage: The Cultural Politics of Love and Law. University Press.

Jiménez-Marín, G., Elías-Zambrano, R., & García Medina, I. (2018). Publicidad digital, storytelling y transmedia narrative: Educomunicación del consumidor. Razón y palabra, 101, 467-478. https://goo.su/lPtB

Johnson, C. (2012) Denmark: Same-Sex Marriage to Be Approved. The Library of Congress. https://bit.ly/497tggx

Khiri Z. (2022). Why is social media activism is important https://www.onlineoptimism.com/blog/social-media-activism/

Kitchens, B., Johnson, S.L. and Gray, P. (2020). Understanding Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles: The Impact of Social Media on Diversification and Partisan Shifts in News Consumption. MIS Q., 44. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/16371

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781

Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. and Gaudet, H. (2021). The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. Columbia University Press.

Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S. and Hertwig, R. (2023). A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature Human Behaviour 7, 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1

Margery Carvajal, M., & Bonilla López, M. (2025). Pride Marketing: LGBTQ+ Student Attitudes in Costa Rica. IROCAMM - International Review Of Communication And Marketing Mix, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.12795/IROCAMM.2025.v08.i01.04

Myles, D., Duguay, S., & Echaiz, L. F. (2023). Mapping the social implications of platform algorithms for LGBTQ+ communities. Journal of Digital Social Research, 5(4), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v5i4.162

Olivares-García, F. J. (2022). The communication of sexual diversity in social media:: TikTok and Trans Community. IROCAMM - International Review Of Communication And Marketing Mix, 5(1), 83–97. https://dx.doi.org/10.12795/IROCAMM.2021.v05.i01.07

Palomo-Domínguez, I., Pivorienė, J., & Merfeldaitė, O. (2024). Social Inclusion of Gen Z Ukrainian in Lithuania: The Role of Online Social Networks. Social Sciences, 13(7), 361. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13070361

Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. The Penguin Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage Publications.

Pearson, G. D. and Knobloch-Westerwick, S. (2018). Perusing pages and skimming screens: Exploring differing patterns of selective exposure to hard news and professional sources in online and print news. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3580–3596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818755565

Pew Research Center. (2022). Public Trust in Government: 1958-2022. Retrieved January 27, 2023, from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/

Riemer, K. and Peter, S. (2021). Algorithmic audiencing: Why we need to rethink free speech on social media. Journal of Information Technology, 36(4), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211013358

Riggle, E. D., Ellis, A. L., and Crawford, A. M. (1996). The impact of “media contact” on attitudes toward gay men. Journal of homosexuality, 31(3), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v31n03_04

Sanz-Marcos, P., Jiménez-Marín, G., & Elías-Zambrano, R. (2020). The influencer’s power in strategic brand decisions. adComunica , 63-86. https://doi.org/10.6035/2174-0992.2019.18.5

Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B. and Hewes, D. E. (2006). Can one TV show make a difference? Will & Grace and the Parasocial Contact Hypothesis. Journal of homosexuality, 51(4), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n04_02

Segado-Boj, F. and Díaz-Campo, J. (2020). Social media and its intersections with free speech, freedom of information and privacy. An analysis. Icono 14, 18(1), 231-255. https://doi.org/10.7195/ri14.v18i1.1379

Shahid, M. (2023). Equal marriage rights and the European Courts. ERA Forum 23, 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-023-00729-w

Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform Capitalism. Cambridge; Malden: Polity Press.

Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Talamanca, T.G. and Arfini, S. (2022). Through the Newsfeed Glass: Rethinking Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers. Philos. Technol. 35, 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00494-z

Torrecilla G., J.A.; Landa-Blanco, M.; Poleo Gutiérrez, F.J.; Castilla Mesa, M.T. (2021) Activism and Social Media: Youth Participation and Communication. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10485. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su131810485

Thorson, K., Cotter, K., Medeiros, M. and Pak, C. (2021). Algorithmic inference, political interest, and exposure to news and politics on Facebook. Information Communication and Society, 24(2), 183-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1642934

Trandafir, M. (2014). The Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Different-Sex Marriage: Evidence from the Netherlands. Demography, 51(1), 317-340. DOI:10.1007/s13524-013-0248-7

Turner, G., Mills, S., van der Bom, I., Coffey-Glover, L, Paterson, L. L. and Jones, L. (2018). Opposition as victimhood in newspaper debates about same-sex marriage. Discourse & Society, 29(2), 180–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517734422

Ventriglio, A., Castaldelli-Maia, J. M., Torales, J., De Berardis, D. and Bhugra, D. (2021). Homophobia and mental health: a scourge of modern era. Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 30, e52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000391

Wollebæk, D., Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K. and Enjolras, B. (2019). Anger, Fear, and Echo Chambers: The Emotional Basis for Online Behavior. Social Media + Society, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119829859

Woods K. (2022) Social media activism: This is how you start a movement. https://sproutsocial.com/insights/social-media-activism/

Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: PublicAffairs.

Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Möller J., Kruikemeier, S., Ó Fathaigh, R., Irion, K., Dobber, T., Bodó, B. and de Vreese, C. H. (2018). Online Political Microtargeting: Promises and Threats for Democracy. Utrecht Law Review, 14(1), p. 82-96. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3128787

Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., Trilling, D., Möller, J., Bodó, B., de Vreese, C. H. and Helberger, N. (2016). Should we worry about filter bubbles? Internet Policy Review, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.14763/2016.1.401