Carle Jasmin (Image : Pixabay)
In March 2026, an analysis by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue documented a dramatic increase in anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric in Canada after the Tumbler Ridge shooting. More than 10,000 anti-LGBTQ+ posts were recorded in Canada in a single day. Among the Canadian extremist accounts examined, daily posts rose from approximately 20 to 233—an increase of more than 1,000%.
The analysis also found that a few recurring narratives generated a significant share of the engagement. A crisis can therefore trigger a digital avalanche in which a limited number of actors produce or relay specific narratives on a massive scale.
Yet the visibility of hateful rhetoric does not necessarily indicate how many people genuinely support it. Its reach also reflects the ability of the digital system to circulate it.
When a minority appears to be a majority
Social media have changed the way hatred spreads. A small number of highly active accounts can create the impression that a much larger movement exists. Imagine ten particularly active people, each publishing 20 messages a day. That produces 200 posts. If only 20 other accounts repost, comment on or reformulate those messages, the number of posts associated with the same narrative can quickly reach several thousand.
Each post may then be viewed by hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people. Ten people can produce ten voices, while the Internet can give those voices an audience of millions. The apparent popularity of an idea can consequently bear little relation to the actual number of people who support it.
A user who encounters several anti-LGBTQ+ messages in succession may easily conclude that “everyone thinks this way.” In reality, the content may come from a small group of accounts that cite one another, respond to one another and repeatedly circulate the same material.
This process is sometimes called coordinated amplification or “astroturfing.” A small group’s activity artificially creates the appearance of a much broader movement. The same message may be turned into a video, an image, a comment, a humorous post or a purported news story. Although the format changes, the underlying narrative remains essentially the same.
Not every social media account necessarily belongs to a real person acting independently. Manipulation campaigns may rely on automated accounts, fake accounts or multiple accounts controlled by one group. Their purpose can be to manufacture interactions around particular content and make it seem more credible or more widely supported.
A university study on coordinated social media manipulation has shown how small groups can use multiple accounts to amplify messages artificially and make an opinion appear more widespread than it really is. Technology now makes it possible to simulate the appearance of a popular movement in a way that would have been extremely difficult only a few years ago.
Why outrage travels so quickly
Social media platforms do not necessarily present posts in chronological order. They try, among other things, to identify the content most likely to hold users’ attention. Material that provokes strong emotional reactions often generates more engagement. Anger, outrage, fear and disgust can therefore become highly effective drivers of dissemination.
A particularly provocative homophobic message may receive hundreds of comments, including comments condemning it. From the standpoint of visibility, however, the result can be identical: the content gains interactions and may become more prominent. People denouncing hateful material can thus sometimes contribute unintentionally to its circulation when they repost it to criticize it.
A person may share a post in order to condemn it. Someone else may publish it in a group to ask what it means. A journalist may report on it, a politician may respond to it and an influencer may comment on it. At each stage, the message reaches another audience. A post initially created by a handful of people can ultimately be seen by millions.
The role of artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence could change the scale of this process profoundly. Before generative AI tools became available, anyone wanting to distribute the same message in several forms had to write each version themselves. Today, AI tools can rapidly generate numerous variations: different texts and headlines, translations, summaries, replies to comments and versions adapted to different platforms.
AI can also help create images and videos that present the same narrative in different formats. Artificial intelligence does not necessarily create hatred. Above all, it can dramatically reduce the time and cost required to produce and distribute it.
A resurgence that is real—but not explained by visibility alone
For several months, homophobic and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric has had particularly high visibility on social media. Insults, accusations, calls for exclusion and, at times, calls for violence circulate daily on major platforms. But how many people are actually behind this large volume of content?
For several years, and especially since Donald Trump returned to the presidency of the United States in January 2025, hostile rhetoric toward LGBTQ+ people appears to have regained a troubling level of visibility in several parts of the world. The available data support a qualified answer to the question of whether homophobia is experiencing a global resurgence: some indicators point in that direction, but there is no global statistic that directly attributes a measurable increase in homophobia to Donald Trump.
The most recent data nevertheless reveal a difficult trend to ignore: some measures of acceptance of LGBTQ+ people are declining, while hostile political rhetoric and certain restrictive measures are multiplying.
The Ipsos LGBT+ Pride 2026 survey, conducted in 26 countries, offers one significant international indicator. It found that 66% of respondents support same-sex marriage or its legal recognition. That remains a clear majority, but the figure was 69% in 2025. Support therefore fell by 3 percentage points in one year.
This does not mean that 3% of the world’s population suddenly became homophobic. The survey covers only 26 countries, and annual changes can be affected by numerous political, social and cultural factors. Still, the result is an important statistical signal: after decades in which acceptance of same-sex couples generally increased in several Western societies, some indicators are beginning to move in the opposite direction.
Digital hatred has consequences beyond the screen
It would nevertheless be dangerous to conclude that digital homophobia is only an illusion. Attacks, threats and hate crimes exist. LGBTQ+ people are genuinely targeted in several cities across the United States, including in two recent murders at gay clubs, as well as through attacks in Canada and Europe.
The recent wave of homophobia may be fueled primarily by a bandwagon effect propagated by a handful of individuals who multiply hateful messages and calls for aggression, notably with the help of artificial intelligence to produce and distribute content on a mass scale. But this does not make the danger unreal.
The question is instead how a minority can use new technologies to amplify its ideas until they influence the wider social climate. The boundary between the Internet and reality has largely disappeared. Repeated discourse can help normalize certain words, accusations and prejudices. Ideas that once seemed marginal can eventually enter mainstream political or media language.
Whether homophobic hatred is directed personally at us or expressed in generalized form, we must not remain passive. It must be confronted as quickly as possible, before it becomes established in the imagination of those who hate—people who often seek only confirmation of their ideas and prejudices, and who may eventually find in them a justification for targeting who we are and what we represent.
ADVERTISING
Comments