Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Age 18-25 26-35 36-50 51-65 65+ Would rather not say
Have you or your community relied on platform anonymity/pseudonymity features that later proved more fragile than expected (e.g., through geolocation, metadata, screenshots)? What happened, and what would have prevented it?
What happened, and what would have prevented it?
How does your organisation or community currently weigh the benefits of online visibility (support, advocacy reach, solidarity) against the risks (surveillance, hyper-visibility, targeting)?
What would help you make this calculation more safely?
Has your organisation or community experienced harm connected to data collection you did not meaningfully consent to (e.g., inferred identity data, platform terms changed after the fact)?
What would ‘meaningful consent’ look like in the digital environment your community depends on for survival?
How does your community currently balance the protective value of anonymity/pseudonymity against the risk that the same anonymity is used by hostile actors to harass or infiltrate your spaces?
What governance changes (platform-level or legal) would improve this balance without eliminating protective anonymity?
Has strategic management of your online identity (secondary accounts, partial disclosure, coded language) changed your ability to build community, seek employment, or engage politically?
Would framing digital harm using concepts like ‘data colonialism’ or ‘extractive infrastructure’ help or hinder your advocacy with policymakers, funders, or the public in your context?
What language has proven most persuasive for you so far?
What strategies has your organisation used to maintain advocacy capacity during the ‘droughts’ between moments of high public attention, when algorithmic and media focus has moved elsewhere?
Have you observed coordinated anti-LGBTI+ campaigns (coordinated posting, meme networks, hashtag manipulation, bot amplification) in your country or platform environment?
What form did they take, and how did mainstream media or institutions respond?
Have you encountered anti-LGBTI+ content that used humour, satire, or ‘just joking’ framing to spread narratives while evading moderation?
How did this affect your ability to respond or report it?
Single Single survival?
If you operate in a context with restrictive digital laws (e.g., propaganda laws, extremist designations, VPN restrictions), how has this affected what you and your community feel able to search for, post, or organise online?
What protective measures have proven effective?
Have you observed cases where anti-LGBTI+ narratives that originated or gained traction on social media were subsequently picked up and legitimised by mainstream news coverage?
What would help journalists avoid amplifying coordinated disinformation?
Has your organisation or community experienced content being removed, downranked, or ‘shadowbanned’ for identity-affirming speech, while comparable hostile content targeting LGBTI+ people remained active?
Can you provide specific examples (platform, content type, outcome)?
Have you experienced coordinated reporting/flagging campaigns used to suppress LGBTI+ content or accounts?
What was the platform's response, and how effective – or ineffective – was it?
Are you aware of cases in your context where algorithmically amplified anti-LGBTI+ narratives influenced public debate, policy, or legislation?
What strategies (coded language, hashtag practices, format changes) has your community developed to maintain visibility within algorithmic constraints?
What has this cost you in terms of time, reach, or psychological burden?
Where you or your organisation have experienced online harm that may meet a criminal threshold (harassment, incitement, coordinated abuse), what barriers did you face in reporting, evidence-gathering, or securing law enforcement action –particularly across jurisdictions?
Has your organisation or community experienced fabricated statements, deepfake imagery, or synthetic ‘evidence’ targeting LGBTI+ individuals or advocacy work? If so, what form did it take, and how quickly – if at all – were you able to have it corrected or removed?
Have you or your organisation had authentic statements, footage, or testimony dismissed by opponents as ‘AI-generated’ or fabricated?
How did this affect your credibility or advocacy work, and what response strategies – if any – proved effective?
Does your organisation currently have the technical capacity, training, or resources to identify synthetic media and respond to it?
What responsibility should platforms bear for the amplification of AI-generated disinformation targeting LGBTI+ communities, and what concrete platform-level interventions (labelling, detection tools, faster takedown processes) would you prioritise?
Should human rights and LGBTI+ advocacy organisations begin using generative AI defensively (e.g., synthetic content detection and rapid-response verification tools) even if they continue to avoid manipulative uses? What ethical boundaries should guide this?
In your jurisdiction, are there adequate legal mechanisms to address AI-generated defamation, harassment, or impersonation targeting LGBTI+ individuals or organisations? What reforms are most urgently needed?
Have you seen evidence of specific platform design features (recommendation algorithms, monetisation/verification systems, moderation policy changes) measurably increase anti-LGBTI+ content visibility or engagement?
In your experience, do alternative/low-moderation platforms (e.g., Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social) function as radicalisation or coordination spaces that later surface on mainstream platforms? What would effective intervention look like?
What indicators – in your experience – most reliably signal that online anti-LGBTI+ hostility is escalating toward offline harm (protests, threats, violence)?
Given that identical online narratives produce vastly different real-world consequences depending on local legal and political context, what support (legal, technological, advocacy) is most urgently needed in high-risk jurisdictions?
Have you observed cooperation or coordination between domestic and international anti-rights actors? If so, how has this affected your work or the communities you support?
Which online narratives or campaigns have been most effective in fuelling hostility towards LGBTI+ people in your context?
Within the LGBTI+ community, which groups are most affected by these digital campaigns, and how do factors such as race, gender identity, disability, migration status, or other characteristics shape those experiences?
What strategies have been most effective in disrupting, countering, or building resilience against coordinated anti-LGBTI+ mobilisation online?
What actions should governments, technology companies, international organisations, and donors prioritise to better protect LGBTI+ activists and communities from coordinated digital anti-rights campaigns?
Have you or your organisation experienced coordinated online harassment, surveillance, doxxing, or other forms of abuse that appeared to be organised through private or encrypted digital channels?
Are hidden digital infrastructures such as encrypted messaging groups, anonymous forums, or illicit data sharing – playing an increasing role in anti-LGBTI+ mobilisation in your country or region?
What practical digital security challenges do LGBTI+ organisations face when balancing the need for privacy, anonymity, and secure communications with the risks of misuse by hostile actors?
Have data breaches, doxxing, impersonation, or the misuse of personal information affected LGBTI+ activists, organisations, or communities where you work?
What support, tools, or resources would most strengthen the digital security and resilience of LGBTI+ activists and organisations in your context?
What responsibilities should governments, technology companies, and encrypted messaging providers have in addressing coordinated digital harms while protecting privacy, freedom of expression, and secure communications?
To what extent have online misogyny, anti-gender movements, or ‘manosphere’ communities contributed to hostility towards LGBTI+ people in your context?
Have emerging technologies – including generative AI and deepfakes – changed the nature or scale of digital abuse faced by your organisation or the communities you support?
What barriers do survivors encounter when reporting or seeking redress for technology-facilitated gender-based violence, including image-based abuse or synthetic sexual content?
What practical measures should governments, technology companies, and international organisations take to better prevent and respond to these forms of abuse while protecting freedom of expression and privacy?
Are there examples of effective laws, platform policies, survivor support services, or community-led initiatives that have successfully addressed technology-facilitated gender-based violence affecting LGBTI+ people?
Which communities within the LGBTI+ movement are most affected by the transition from online hostility to offline harm, and what factors contribute to their increased vulnerability?
Have digital campaigns influenced public opinion, political debate, or legislative developments affecting LGBTI+ rights in your country or region? If so, how?
What measures have been most effective in protecting LGBTI+ activists and organisations from the real-world impacts of coordinated digital hostility?
What additional actions should governments, technology companies, international organisations, and donors take to strengthen accountability and prevent digital harms from escalating into offline violence or discrimination?
Which policy or legal reforms should governments prioritise to better protect the digital rights of LGBTI+ people?
What additional responsibilities should technology companies have in preventing and responding to digital harms affecting LGBTI+ communities?
How can civil society organisations, activists, and community networks be better supported to strengthen digital resilience and respond to emerging online threats?
Are there examples of effective laws, regulatory frameworks, platform policies, or community-led initiatives?
What safeguards are needed to ensure that efforts to regulate digital platforms do not undermine privacy, secure communications, freedom of expression, or the work of human rights defenders?
In this report, which findings most closely reflect your experience or the experiences of the communities you work with?
What additional evidence, case studies, or examples should be included before the report is finalised?
Looking ahead, what emerging technologies, digital trends, or policy challenges should our community prioritise?
Digital technologies have become indispensable to modern civic life. For many LGBTI+ people – particularly those living in hostile legal or social environments – online spaces provide access to community, identity, information, and activism that may be unavailable offline. Digital platforms have transformed how LGBTI+ communities organise, tell their stories, build solidarity across borders, and participate in public life.
Read the report and respond to the consultation questions below
