ArticlePloS one2025
Social media as societal microcosm: A decade of LGBT Twitter conversations in Singapore.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingapore occupies a curious societal grey-area: a digitally savvy country with a colonial-remnant law against homosexuality (penal code 377A), widely acknowledged as non-proactively enforced, existing to placate a conservative society; hotly contested for years and finally repealed in Parliament in 2022. Within a national context of state-upheld heteronormativity, yet with homosexuality not entirely condemned, Singapore occupies a liminal space where subtle resistance is carefully negotiated, especially in online spaces.
objectivesThis study investigated LGBT-adjacent discussions across social media over a decade (2011-2021) for salient topics, sentiment distribution, emotional intensity frames and nuanced topics.
methodsHistorical Twitter data containing LGBT keywords (N = 15,659) were collected and analyzed using bi-term topic modelling, sentiment score modelling, and emotional intensity modelling. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted on highest-scoring emotion tiers.
resultsSentiment was distributed over a range: Very Positive (6%), Positive (33%), Neutral (11%), Negative (42%), Very Negative (7%). Predominant emotions were Joy (39%), Anger (32%), Sadness (11%), Fear (11%). Of themes from highest-scoring emotional-intensity tweets, Anger included: 'gay' used derogatorily; heated debates over ideological-often religious-differences; dissent within the community, condemning exclusionary views. Fear and Sadness included distress over violence (mass shootings, harassment, bullying); lack of acceptance (criminalization, protests over local pride event 'Pinkdot'; lack of familial support). Joy stemmed from the celebration of pride month.
conclusionsOur findings highlight nuanced emotional intensities, profiles undertones of LGBT dissent and support, fractured along a schism of differing views and contrasting opinions-a societal microcosm of a divisive topic. Practically, this presents a decade-long barometer of dominant trigger points that may help facilitate conversations on the affective concerns of the local population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.