Research on Twitter—now known as X—use by blind or visually impaired individuals for self-advocacy is limited. This study examines (1) the key topics and issues discussed by visually impaired advocates, their parents, and organizations; (2) the individuals and organizations most frequently mentioned; (3) the use of visual media in posts by these groups; (4) disability identity disclosure; and (5) the structure of their online networks.
Analyzing 163,476 tweets from visually impaired advocates, their parents, and organizations, the study finds that tweets with high engagement often feature personal narratives, accessibility advocacy, humor, and emotion. Retweets were most frequent for posts about politicians, parental advocacy, and empowerment. Mentions of individuals and organizations were common, while emojis and URLs conveyed positivity and promoted initiatives. Hashtags reflected themes of blindness, resilience, and education. Disability disclosure and regular tweeting were associated with higher engagement and larger follower bases.
Al ZayerMGunesMH (2017). Analyzing the use of Twitter to disseminate visual impairments awareness information. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, Sydney, Australia, 31 July–3 August 2017, pp. 187–194. New York: IEEE.
2.
AlkhathlanMTlachacMLHarrisonL, et al. (2021) “Honestly I never really thought about adding a description”: why highly engaged tweets are inaccessible. In ArditoCLanzilottiRMaliziaA, et al. (eds) IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 373–395.
3.
AuxierBEBuntainCLJaegerP, et al. (2019). #HandsOffMyADA: a Twitter response to the ADA Education and Reform Act. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems527: 1–12.
4.
BasseyAMeribeNBasseyE, et al. (2021) Perceptions and experience of social media use among adults with physical disability in Nigeria: attention to social interaction. Disability & Society38(7): 1146–1163.
5.
BitmanN (2021) “Which part of my group do I represent?” disability activism and social media users with concealable communicative disabilities. Information, Communication & Society26(3): 619–636.
6.
BoydD (2010) Social network sites as networked publics: affordances, dynamics, and implications. In: PapacharissiZ (ed.) A Networked Self. London: Routledge, pp. 47–66.
7.
BradyEBighamJP (2014). How companies engage customers around accessibility on social media. In: Proceedings of the 16th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility, Rochester, NY, USA, 20–22 October 2014, pp. 51–58. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
8.
BradyELZhongYMorrisMR, et al. (2013) Investigating the appropriateness of social network question asking as a resource for blind users. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, San Antonio, TX, USA, 23–27 February 2013, pp. 1225–1236. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
9.
BuzziMCBuzziMLeporiniB (2011). Web 2.0: Twitter and the blind. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCHI Italian Chapter International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Facing Complexity, Alghero, Italy, 13–16 September 2011, pp. 151–156. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
10.
ChatterjeeSKrystyanczukM (2017) Python Social Media Analytics. Birmingham: Packt Publishing Ltd.
11.
ChiarellaDYarbroughJJacksonCAL (2020) Using alt text to make science Twitter more accessible for people with visual impairments. Nature Communications11(1): 1–3.
12.
Della LíberaBJurbergC (2020) Communities of practice on WhatsApp: a tool for promoting citizenship among students with visual impairments. British Journal of Visual Impairment38(1): 58–78.
13.
EllcessorE (2018) “One tweet to make so much noise”: Connected celebrity activism in the case of Marlee Matlin. New Media & Society20(1): 255–271.
14.
EllisKKentM (2010) Community accessibility: Tweeters take responsibility for an accessible Web 2.0. Fast Capitalism7(1).
15.
EllisKGogginGKentM (2015) Disability’s digital frictions: activism, technology and politics. The Fibreculture Journal26: 7–31.
16.
EmaraI (2023) Evaluation of qualitative data analysis software by a visually impaired researcher: an autoethnographic study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods22: 16094069231214390.
17.
EmaraI (2025a) “Talking the same language”: the influence of sharing a visual impairment identity between researchers and participants on enhancing participant recruitment and fostering rapport during interviews with blind individuals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods24: 16094069251320858.
18.
EmaraIH (2025b) Knocking on doors: The use of blogging sites by visually impaired people in the USA preliminary study. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies31(1): 267–282.
19.
EmaraIHHallerBA (2024) “It’s weird for the people who aren’t used to it. And I want to make it less weird”: blindness community bloggers as legitimate voices of their lived experiences. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 23 February 2024. DOI: 10.1177/14614448241229424.
20.
GarnerPSandowS (Eds) (2018) Advocacy, Self-Advocacy and Special Needs. London: Routledge.
21.
GerlitzCRiederB (2013) Mining one percent of Twitter: collections, baselines, sampling. M/C Journal16(2).
GleasonCCarringtonPCassidyC, et al. (2019a) “It’s almost like they’re trying to hide it”: how user-provided image descriptions have failed to make Twitter accessible. In The World Wide Web Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 May 2019, pp. 549–559. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
24.
GleasonCCarringtonPChiltonLB, et al. (2019b) Addressing the accessibility of social media. In: Conference Companion Publication of the 2019 on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Austin, TX, USA, 9–13 November 2016, pp. 474–479. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
25.
GleasonCValenciaSKiraboL, et al. (2020). Disability and the COVID-19 pandemic: using Twitter to understand accessibility during rapid societal transition. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 26–28 October 2020, pp. 1–14. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
26.
GruzdAMaiPKampenA (2017) A how-to for using Netlytic to collect and analyze social media data: a case study of the use of Twitter during the 2014 Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine. In: SloanLQuan-HaaseA (eds) The Sage Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. London: Sage Publications, pp. 513–529.
27.
InelandJGelfgrenSCocqC (2019) Negotiating authority: disability, interactions and power relations on twitter. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research21(1): 238–249.
28.
JosephSLXiaoJZhangX, et al. (2015) Being aware of the world: toward using social media to support the blind with navigation. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems45(3): 399–405.
29.
KaneSKBighamJP (2014). Tracking @stemxcomet: teaching programming to blind students via 3D printing, crisis management, and Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Atlanta, GA, USA, 5–8 March 2014, pp. 247–252. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
30.
KearneyKBDarlingSMDukesC (2020) Disability and dating: exploring the Twittersphere. Inclusion8(4): 293–302.
31.
KellehearA (2020) The Unobtrusive Researcher: A Guide to Methods. London: Routledge.
32.
KozinetsRV (2002) The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research39(1): 61–72.
33.
LabareeRV (2002) The risk of ‘going observationalist’: Negotiating the hidden dilemmas of being an insider participant observer. Qualitative Research2(1): 97–122.
34.
Latzko-TothGBonneauCMilletteM (2017) Small data, thick data: thickening strategies for trace-based social media research. In: SloanLQuan-HaaseA (eds) The Sage Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. London: Sage Publications, pp. 199–214.
35.
LeeSMHongSGAnDH, et al. (2014) Disability users’ evaluation of the web accessibility of SNS. Service Business8(4): 517–540.
LiHBradyE (2017) #accessibilityfail: exploring the potential of using social media posts to identify accessibility problems. In: iConference 2017 Proceedings, Reno, NV, USA, 23–26 October 2016. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
38.
LiebermanLJChildsR (2020) Steps to success: a sport-focused self-advocacy program for children with visual impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness114(6): 531–537.
39.
LoureiroJRCagninMIPaivaDM (2014) Web accessibility in social networking services. In: MurganteBMisraSRochaAMAC, et al. (eds) Computational Science and Its Applications—ICCSA 2014: 14th International Conference, Guimarães, Portugal, June 30–July 3, 2014, Proceedings, Part V. London: Springer International Publishing, pp. 586–601.
40.
LoureiroJRCagninMIPaivaDMB (2015). Analysis of web accessibility in social networking services through blind users’ perspective and an accessible prototype. In: MurganteBMisraSRochaAMAC, et al. (eds), Computational Science and Its Applications—ICCSA 2015: International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications. Cham: Springer, pp. 117–131.
41.
McGregorSCMourãoRRMolyneuxL (2017) Twitter as a tool for and object of political and electoral activity: considering electoral context and variance among actors. Journal of Information Technology & Politics14(2): 154–167. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1560736/FULLTEXT01.pdf
42.
MacLeodHBennettCLMorrisMR, et al. (2017) Understanding blind people’s experiences with computer-generated captions of social media images. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6–11 May 2017, pp. 5988–5999. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
43.
MannBW (2018) Survival, disability rights, and solidarity: advancing cyberprotest rhetoric through disability march. Disability Studies Quarterly38(1).
44.
MayrPWellerK (2017) Think before you collect: setting up a data collection approach for social media studies. In: SloanLQuan-HaaseA (eds) The Sage Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. Washington DC: Sage, pp. 108–124.
45.
MorrisMRZolyomiAYaoC, et al. (2016) “With most of it being pictures now, I rarely use it”: understanding Twitter’s evolving accessibility to blind users. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA, 7–12 May 2016, pp. 5506–5516. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
46.
MorstatterFPfefferJLiuH, et al. (2013) Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from Twitter’s streaming API with Twitter’s firehose. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media7(1): 400–408.
47.
MulderinkCE (2020) The emergence, importance of #DisabilityTooWhite hashtag. Disability Studies Quarterly40(2).
48.
ParsloeSMHoltonAE (2018) #Boycottautismspeaks: communicating a counternarrative through cyberactivism and connective action. Information, Communication & Society21(8): 1116–1133.
49.
PereiraLSCoelhoJRodriguesA, et al. (2021) Barriers and opportunities to accessible social media content authoring. arXiv preprint: arXiv:2104.10968.
50.
PerišaMCvitićISenteRE (2016). Social network customer requirements analysis for visually impaired people. In: 4th International Virtual Research Conference in Technical Disciplines, ZOOM Virtual Conferencing, 16–18 October 2023, pp. 36–44. Cagayan de Oro, Philippines: Asean Research Organization.
51.
RingI (2021) “Go home, we love you!” Examining agenda melding activities and participation amongst Twitter users following the US Capitol riots. Bachelor Thesis, Linnaeus University, Sweden. Available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1560736/FULLTEXT01.pdf
52.
Rojas-TorrijosJLRamonX (2021) Exploring agenda diversity in European public service media sports desks: a comparative study of underrepresented disciplines, sportswomen and disabled athletes’ coverage on Twitter. Journalism Studies22(2): 225–242.
53.
RussellMA (2013) Mining the Social Web: Data Mining Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, Google+, Github, and More. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.
54.
SahaAAgarwalN (2015). Demonstrating social support from autism bloggers community on Twitter. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, Paris, France, 25–28 August 2015, pp. 1053–1056. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
55.
SalisburyEKamarEMorrisMR (2018). Evaluating and complementing vision-to-language technology for people who are blind with conversational Crowdsourcing. In: IJCAI-ECAI-18, Stockholm, Sweden, 13–19 July, 2018. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization.
56.
SarkarTForber-PrattAJHanebuttR, et al. (2021) “Good morning, Twitter! What are you doing today to support the voice of people with #disability?”: Disability and digital organizing. Journal of Community Practice29(3): 299–318.
57.
ShakesPCashinA (2020) An analysis of Twitter discourse regarding identifying language for people on the autism spectrum. Issues in Mental Health Nursing41(3): 221–228.
58.
ShawDLMcCombsMWeaverDH, et al. (1999) Individuals, groups, and agenda melding: A theory of social dissonance. International Journal of Public Opinion11(1): 2–24.
59.
ShawDLMousaISVargoCJ, et al. (2016) The agenda setting in the digital age: how we use media to monitor civic life and reframe community. Jordan Journal of Social Sciences9(1): 125–138.
60.
SwainGWaddingtonJ (2022) The effectiveness of self-advocacy videos to inform enablers about the support needs of students with vision impairment. British Journal of Visual Impairment40(2): 264–273.
61.
TestDWFowlerCHWoodWM, et al. (2005) A conceptual framework of self-advocacy for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education26(1): 43–54.
62.
ThelwallMLevittJM (2020) Retweeting Covid-19 disability issues: risks, support and outrage. Profesional De La Información29(2).
63.
Van de VenAH (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
64.
VashisthaACutrellEDellN, et al. (2015). Social media platforms for low-income blind people in India. In: Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility, Lisbon Portugal, 26–28 October 2015, pp. 259–272. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
65.
VoykinskaVAzenkotSWuS, et al. (2016). How blind people interact with visual content on social networking services. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, San Francisco, CA, USA, 27 February 2016, pp. 1584–1595. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
66.
WasosaH (2025) Fostering self-advocacy and independence for people with visual impairment in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science9(17): 135–143.
67.
WehmeyerMLGarnerNW (2003) The impact of personal characteristics of people with intellectual and developmental disability on self-determination and autonomous functioning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities16(4): 255–265.
68.
ZellerF (2017) Analyzing social media data and other data sources: a methodological overview. In: SloanLQuan-HaaseA (eds) The Sage Handbook of Social Media Research Methods. London: Sage Publications, pp. 386–404.
69.
ZhangJFindlaterL (2017) A preliminary investigation of #a11y tweets to understand accessibility trends and concerns (Technical Report HCIL-2017-02). College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
