The Philippines continues to grapple with a rising number of HIV cases, particularly among Filipino men who have sex with men. Notably, Filipino men living with HIV (FMLWH) are visible on Twitter (now X), despite Facebook’s dominance in the Philippines. The Twitterverse of FMLWH may be imagined as networked publics, with these users negotiating visibility management in the face of HIV-related stigmas and navigating context collapse in a high-visibility space. In this study, we explore the visibility management practices of Twitter users identifying as FMLWH and subsequently map their network structure. Our mixed-methods approach combined analysis of online trace data from 1447 public Twitter accounts with in-depth interviews conducted with 24 Twitter users. Findings revealed that FMLWH employed a range of visibility management practices on Twitter, including the use of succinct identifiers to disclose HIV status, the maintenance of pseudonymous identities, and a strategic shift from partial to greater visibility when engaging with other FMLWH in private communication spaces. Participants expressed a strong inclination to connect with fellow ‘blood brothers’ and were frequently directed to these users through algorithmic recommendations rather than word-of-mouth. An expansive network comprising 302,934 ‘follow’ ties connected all but two of the 1447 users. Network analysis also showed high reciprocity and short distances between actors. Despite these metrics, a relatively low degree of interconnectedness was found, suggesting that users formed their own smaller pockets of conversation. Overall, FMLWH exhibited a deliberate effort to manage their visibility on Twitter and demonstrated a level of connectivity and engagement that might not naturally occur in real-world settings. Furthermore, the affordances of Twitter facilitated the open disclosure of HIV status, traditionally considered a private and sensitive matter. These findings warrant further investigation into the formation of networked HIV social identities and the emergence of pseudonymous networked counterpublics among FMLWH.
AdiaACBermudezANCCallahanMW, et al. (2018) “An evil lurking behind you”: drivers, experiences, and consequences of HIV-related stigma among men who have sex with men with HIV in Manila, Philippines. AIDS Education and Prevention: Official Publication of the International Society for AIDS Education30(4): 322–334.
2.
AnkrahEM (1993) The impact of HIV/AIDS on the family and other significant relationships: the African clan revisited. AIDS Care5(1): 5–22.
3.
ArnoldEMRiceEFlanneryD, et al. (2008) HIV disclosure among adults living with HIV. AIDS Care20(1): 80–92.
4.
BaiderL (2010) My illness, myself: on the secrecy of shame. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention: Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention11(Suppl 1): 59–62.
5.
Bar-LevS (2008) “We are here to give you emotional support”: performing emotions in an online HIV/AIDS support group. Qualitative Health Research18(4): 509–521.
6.
BoudewynsVHimelboimIHansenDL, et al. (2015) Stigma’s effect on social interaction and social media activity. Journal of Health Communication20(11): 1337–1345.
7.
boyddm (2011) Social network sites as networked publics: affordances, dynamics, and implications. In: PapacharissiZ (ed). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York, NY: Routledge, 39–58.
BruckmanA (2002) Studying the amateur artist: a perspective on disguising data collected in human subjects research on the Internet. Ethics and Information Technology4(3): 217–231.
11.
BusehAGStevensPEMcManusP, et al. (2006) Challenges and opportunities for HIV prevention and care: insights from focus groups of HIV-infected African American men. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care: Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care17(4): 3–15.
12.
CarricaburuDPierretJ (1995) From biographical disruption to biographical reinforcement: the case of HIV-positive men. Sociology of Health & Illness17(1): 65–88.
13.
ChaudoirSRFisherJDSimoniJM (2011) Understanding HIV disclosure: a review and application of the disclosure processes model. Social Science & Medicine72(10): 1618–1629.
14.
ChenLShiJ (2015) Social support exchanges in a social media community for people living with HIV/AIDS. AIDS Care27(6): 693–696.
15.
ChenLGuoYShiJ (2019) Social support seeking on social media among Chinese gay men living with HIV/AIDS: the role of perceived threat. Telemedicine Journal and e-Health: The Official Journal of the American Telemedicine Association25(7): 655–659.
16.
ChristinA (2020) Metrics at Work: Journalism and the Contested Meaning of Algorithms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
CouldryN (2012) Media, Society, World: Social Theory and Digital Media Practice. London, UK: Polity Press.
19.
CreswellJWPlano ClarkVL (2011) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
20.
DavisMFlowersP (2014) HIV/STI prevention technologies and ‘strategic (in)visibilities. In: DavisMMandersonL (eds) Disclosure in Health and Illness. London, UK: Routledge, 72–88.
21.
DempseyLDowlingMLarkinP, et al. (2016) Sensitive interviewing in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health39(6): 480–490.
DevitoMABirnholtzJHancockJT (2017) Platforms, people, and perception: using affordances to understand self-presentation on social media. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, CSCW, Portland, OR, 25 February– 1 March 2017, Association for Computing Machinery, 740–754.
25.
DewaeleAVan HoutteMCoxN, et al. (2013) From coming out to visibility management: a new perspective on coping with minority stressors in LGB youth in Flanders. Journal of Homosexuality60(5): 685–710.
26.
DewaeleAVan HoutteMVinckeJ (2014) Visibility and coping with minority stress: a gender-specific analysis among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals in Flanders. Archives of Sexual Behavior43(8): 1601–1614.
27.
DonathJS (1999) Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
DoyalLAndersonJ (2005) My fear is to fall in love again.’ How HIV-positive African women survive in London. Social Science & Medicine60(8): 1729–1738.
29.
EmletCA (2006) An examination of the social networks and social isolation in older and younger adults living with HIV/AIDS. Health & Social Work31(4): 299–308.
30.
EvangeliMWroeAL (2017) HIV disclosure anxiety: a systematic review and theoretical synthesis. AIDS and Behavior21(1): 1–11, Springer US.
31.
franzkeasBechmannAZimmerM, et al. (2019) Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0. Chicago, IL: The International Association of Internet Researchers. Available at: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf.
32.
FroomkinAM (1995) Anonymity and its enmities. Journal Online Law1: 1–28.
33.
GallowayARThackerE (2007) The Exploit: A Theory of Networks. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
34.
GangcuangcoLMAEustaquioPC (2023) The state of the HIV epidemic in the Philippines: progress and challenges in 2023. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease8(5): 1–16.
35.
GaysynskyARomansky-PoulinKArpadiS (2015) “My YAP Family”: analysis of a Facebook group for young adults living with HIV. AIDS and Behavior19(6): 947–962, Springer US.
36.
GeorgeMSLambertH (2015) ‘I am doing fine only because I have not told anyone’: the necessity of concealment in the lives of people living with HIV in India. Culture, Health and Sexuality17(8): 933–946.
37.
GillCJGriffithJLJacobsonD, et al. (2002) Relationship of HIV viral loads, CD4 counts, and HAART use to health-related quality of life. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes30(5): 485–492.
38.
GillespieT (2014) The relevance of algorithms. In: GillespieTBoczkowskiPJFootKA (eds) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 167–193.
39.
GreeneKDerlegaVJYepGA, et al. (2003) Privacy and Disclosure of HIV in Interpersonal Relationships: A Sourcebook for Researchers and Practitioners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
40.
HarrisGECorcoranVMylesA, et al. (2015) Establishing an online HIV peer helping programme: a review of process challenges and lessons learned. Health Education Journal74(5): 507–517.
41.
HartleyJMBengtssonMSchjøtt HansenA, et al. (2023) Researching publics in datafied societies: insights from four approaches to the concept of ‘publics’ and a (hybrid) research agenda. New Media & Society25(7): 1668–1686.
42.
HerekGM (1999) AIDS and stigma. American Behavioral Scientist42(7): 1106–1116.
HoganB (2010) The presentation of self in the age of social media: distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society30(6): 377–386.
45.
HoganB (2013) Pseudonyms and the rise of the real-name web. In: HartleyJBurgessJBrunsA (eds) A Companion to New Media Dynamics. West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 290–307.
LasserJTharingerD (2003) Visibility management in school and beyond: a qualitative study of gay, lesbian, bisexual youth. Journal of Adolescence26(2): 233–244.
53.
Latzko-TothGBonneauCMilletteM (2017) Small data, thick data: data thickening strategies for social media research. In: SloanLQuan-HaaseA (eds) The Sage Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd, 157–172.
54.
LightB (2013) Networked masculinities and social networking sites: a call for the analysis of men and contemporary digital media. Masculinities & Social Change2(3): 245–265.
55.
LightB (2014) Creating pseudonymous publics with Squirt: an expansion of the possibilities for networked publics. In: KarahannaESrinivasanATanB (eds) 35th international conference on information systems ‘building a better world through information systems’, ICIS 2014, Atlanta, GA, USA, 14–17December 2014: Association for Information Systems, 1–16. AIS Electronic Library.
56.
LightB (2017a) Men and networked life. In: Selected papers of #AoIR2017: The 18th annual conference of the association of internet researchers, Taru, Estonia, 18–21 October 2017.
57.
LightB (2017b) Producing sexual cultures and pseudonymous publics with digital networks. In: LindRA (ed) Race and Gender in Electronic Media: Content, Context, Culture. New York, NY: Routledge, 231–246.
LohanMFaulknerW (2004) Masculinities and technologies: some introductory remarks. Men and Masculinities6(4): 319–329.
60.
MalhotraP (2024) “What you post in the group stays in the group”: examining the affordances of bounded social media places. Social Media + Society10(3): 1–13.
61.
MalikAAntoninoAKhanML, et al. (2021) Characterizing HIV discussions and engagement on Twitter. Health Technology11(6): 1237–1245.
62.
MarkhamAN (2012) Fabrication as ethical practice: qualitative inquiry in ambiguous Internet contexts. Information, Communication & Society15(3): 334–353.
63.
MarwickAEboydd (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society13(1): 114–133.
64.
MarwickAEboydd (2014) Networked privacy: how teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society16(7): 1051–1067.
65.
MarwickAEEllisonNB (2012) ‘There isn’t Wifi in heaven!’ Negotiating visibility on Facebook memorial pages. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56(3): 378–400.
66.
MilosavljevicZ (2018) Virtual ethnography of HIV: positive health status in gay virtual intimacies in Serbia. In: GarnettEReynoldsJMiltonS (eds) Ethnographies and Health: Reflections on Empirical and Methodological Entanglements. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Cham, 35–50.
67.
MoPKHCoulsonNS (2010) Living with HIV/AIDS and use of online support groups. Journal of Health Psychology15(3): 339–350.
68.
MurthyD (2013) Twitter: Social Communication in the Twitter Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
69.
NeumayerCRossiLStruthersDM (2021) Invisible data: a framework for understanding visibility processes in social media data. Social Media + Society7(1): 1–10.
70.
NobreNRKylmäJKirsiT, et al. (2016) Social networks of older adults living with HIV in Finland. AIDS Care28(2): 186–190.
71.
O’ReillyTMilsteinS (2009) The Twitter Book. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
72.
PamosoAHGScholzBFerolinoA (2024) “Because of HIV, it opened my mind”: intersectional stigma experiences among Filipino gay and bisexual men living with HIV. Qualitative Health Research0(0): 1–16.
73.
PaxtonS (2002) The paradox of public HIV disclosure. AIDS Care14(4): 559–567.
74.
PearceWBSharpSM (1973) Self-disclosing communication. Journal of Communication23: 409–425.
75.
PearceKEVitakJBartaK (2018) Socially mediated visibility: friendship and dissent in authoritarian Azerbaijan. International Journal of Communication12: 1310–1331.
76.
PearceKEGonzalesAFoucault WellesB (2020) Introduction: marginality and social media. Social Media + Society6(3): 1–9.
PhilpotSPMurphyDPrestageG, et al. (2022) Using social media as a platform to publicly disclose HIV status among people living with HIV: control, identity, informing public dialogue. Sociology of Health & Illness44(6): 881–898.
79.
PrestinAChouWYS (2014) Web 2.0 and the changing health communication environment. In: HamiltonHEChouWS (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Language and Health Communication. Oxon, UK: Routledge, 184–197.
80.
RainsSA (2014) The implications of stigma and anonymity for self-disclosure in health blogs. Health Communication29(1): 23–31.
81.
RamirezFA (2018) Social media affordances in the context of police transparency: an analysis of the first public archive of police body camera videos. Journal of Applied Communication Research46(5): 621–640, Taylor & Francis.
82.
RenningerBJ (2015) “Where I can be myself, where I can speak my mind”: networked counterpublics in a polymedia environment. New Media and Society17(9): 1513–1529.
83.
RintamakiLS (2009) The HIV social identity model. In: BrashersDEGoldsmithDJ (eds). Communicating to Manage Health and Illness. New York, NY: Routledge, 212–239.
84.
RiquelmeFGonzález-CantergianiP (2016) Measuring user influence on Twitter: a survey. Information Processing & Management52(5): 949–975.
85.
RonzhynACardenalASBatlle RubioA (2023) Defining affordances in social media research: a literature review. New Media & Society25(11): 3165–3188.
86.
SaldañaJ (2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
87.
SandstromKL (1996) Searching for information, understanding, and self-value: the utilization of peer support groups by gay men with HIV/AIDS. Social Work in Health Care23(4): 51–74.
88.
SchlosserAE (2020) Self-disclosure versus self-presentation on social media. Current Opinion in Psychology31: 1–6, Elsevier Ltd.
89.
SchmidtJ-H, (2014) Twitter and the rise of personal publics. In: WellerKBrunsABurgessJ (eds) Twitter and Society. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 3–15.
90.
SelikowTA (2004) We have our own special language.’ Language, sexuality and HIV/AIDS: a case study of youth in an urban township in South Africa. African Health Sciences4(2): 102–108.
91.
SerovichJM (2001) A test of two HIV disclosure theories. AIDS Education and Prevention: Official Publication of the International Society for AIDS Education13(4): 355–364.
92.
SmithRRossettoKPetersonBL (2008) A meta-analysis of disclosure of one’s HIV-positive status, stigma and social support. AIDS Care20(10): 1266–1275.
93.
SongCBuysseAZhangWH, et al. (2022) Sex differences in the romantic relationships of same-gender couples: the role of visibility management. Psychological Reports125(2): 1103–1120.
94.
SqueMWalkerWLong-SutehallT (2014) Research with bereaved families: a framework for ethical decision-making. Nursing Ethics21(8): 946–955.
95.
StrandC (2011) Blogging: a new tool for coping and accessing psycho-social support for people living with HIV? In: SmedbergA (ed) E-health Communities and Online Self-Help Groups: Applications and Usage. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 106–120.
96.
SulerJ (2004) The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society7(3): 321–326.
97.
TaggartTGreweMEConserveDF, et al. (2015) Social media and HIV: a systematic review of uses of social media in HIV communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research17(11): e4387.
98.
TalbotCVO’DwyerSTClareL, et al. (2020) How people with dementia use Twitter: a qualitative analysis. Computers in Human Behavior102: 112–119, Elsevier.
99.
TaylorB (2001) HIV, stigma and health: integration of theoretical concepts and the lived experiences of individuals. Journal of Advanced Nursing35(5): 792–798.
100.
TreemJWLeonardiPM (2013) Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. Annals of the International Communication Association36(1): 143–189.
101.
TriggsAHMøllerKNeumayerC (2021) Context collapse and anonymity among queer Reddit users. New Media & Society23(1): 5–21.
102.
TwistMLBergdallMKBelousCK, et al. (2017) Electronic visibility management of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy16(4): 271–285.
van der NagelE (2018) Networks that work too well’: intervening in algorithmic connections. Media International Australia168(1): 81–92.
107.
van DijckJ (2013) You have one identity’: performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society35(2): 199–215.
108.
VeinotTC (2009) Interactive acquisition and sharing: understanding the dynamics of HIV/AIDS information networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology60(11): 2313–2332.
109.
WattsDJStrogatzSH (1998) Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature393(6684): 440–442.
110.
WhiteLCantB (2003) Social networks, social support, health and HIV-positive gay men. Health and Social Care in the Community11(4): 329–334.
111.
WoodKLambertH (2008) Coded talk, scripted omissions: the micropolitics of AIDS talk in an affected community in South Africa. Medical Anthropology Quarterly22(3): 213–233.
ZhouYR (2013) Morality, discrimination, and silence: understanding HIV stigma in the sociocultural context of China. In: LiamputtongP (ed) Stigma, Discrimination and Living with HIV/AIDS: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media, 117–132.
