The Double-edged sword: Autism on social media
Social media has become a stage where autism is both illuminated and distorted. On platforms like TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and even Substack, autistic voices are finding unprecedented reach – but so are misconceptions. Scrolling a TikTok feed, one might encounter a heartfelt video of an autistic creator describing their sensory overload, immediately followed by a viral skit reducing autism to a punchline. This juxtaposition captures the paradox of autism’s portrayal online: increased awareness and community-building on one hand, and trivialization and misinformation on the other. As we navigate this digital landscape, it’s crucial to examine how these portrayals shape public understanding of autism – for better and for worse.
Raising awareness and building community
Social media’s influence on autism awareness cannot be overstated. YouTube has enabled more dynamic, personal storytelling around autism that challenges old stereotypes. In one content analysis of popular YouTube videos about autism, researchers found the platform fostered a generally “mixed” sentiment: while some comments carried stigma (e.g. claims that autistic people can’t feel emotion, or treating autism as a monolithic severe condition), many videos provided educational information and encouraged empathy and support (Bakombo). The study noted YouTube’s power in raising awareness by allowing individuals (including those on the spectrum) to share firsthand experiences, thereby creating an environment for public empathy. In short, social platforms have given autistic people a chance to shape the narrative, instead of being spoken about exclusively through clinical or media lenses.
On Instagram and Twitter (now X), hashtags like #ActuallyAutistic and #Neurodiversity have enabled autistic individuals to find each other and form supportive communities. Autistic adults who long felt isolated have been able to connect online, validating each other’s experiences and forging a collective identity. Research confirms this: a 2024 interview study of autistic adults described social media as an “unreliable, but necessary” tool – not always accurate, yet invaluable for finding information and peer support that traditional sources overlooked (Skafle). Participants in the study said official health sites often failed to answer their real-life questions about living with autism, whereas on social platforms they discovered relatable content about things like masking, sensory overload, or navigating jobs and relationships. In these online spaces, many found comfort, advice, and a language for their experiences that they hadn’t found elsewhere.
This community-building has tangible positive effects. Viral posts about topics like sensory sensitivities or autistic “infodumping” have helped countless people recognize traits in themselves, sometimes leading to late diagnoses and a better self-understanding. The normalization of neurodivergence through social media – seeing many voices proudly identifying as autistic or ADHD – has started to chip away at outdated stereotypes. Instead of the narrow, pathologizing depictions that once dominated textbooks and pop culture, autistic individuals themselves are broadening the narrative, showing that autism is not a single story but a spectrum of varied experiences. Representation has begun to shift incrementally: autistic characters and creators are more visible in media and literature, and online advocacy has played a role in this progress.
Perhaps most importantly, social media has empowered a wave of self-advocacy. Younger autistic creators have embraced platforms like TikTok and Instagram to speak up about their needs and rights – whether it’s calling for acceptance over “cures,” promoting autism-friendly workplaces, or educating others about why certain behaviors (like stimming) shouldn’t be mocked. These personal narratives can be profoundly illuminating for neurotypical viewers, fostering understanding one video or post at a time. For many on the spectrum, especially those without local support, online communities serve as a lifeline – a place to be heard, understood, and valued.
Positive personas vs. partial realities
While the rise of autistic self-advocates online is encouraging, it often comes with a platform-friendly polish. The creators who gain the most followers tend to be those who present autism in a way that’s relatable or pleasing to a broad audience. They are frequently autistic people with Level 1 support needs (sometimes informally called “high-functioning” autism), who can mask their traits on camera or articulate their thoughts with clarity and humor. Many are young, tech-savvy, and adept at the bite-sized storytelling that social media rewards. Their content – upbeat explainer videos, witty memes about autistic life, aesthetic photos celebrating neurodiversity – plays well on the algorithms and garners public sympathy.
These friendly faces of autism have undoubtedly advanced acceptance. They show that autistic people can thrive, create, work, date, and parent – breaking down the old, limiting image of autism as something that only looks like non-verbal children or savants. However, the dominance of these voices also paints an incomplete picture. When the majority of what the public sees under the #Autism hashtag are smiling, articulate creators sharing quirky anecdotes, it risks flattening the spectrum.
Autism’s reality is far more heterogeneous. Not everyone is a tech influencer with a clever analogy for their sensory quirks; some are adults who cannot speak and communicate via assistive devices, or children who need 24/7 support with daily living. These individuals rarely trend on TikTok.
The disparity in who gets seen is stark. A study performed by Austrian researchers examining 100 top TikTok videos on autism found that content tagged only #autism (without “neurodiversity” framing) was overwhelmingly geared toward entertainment – and accounted for 97% of all views in the sample (Steiner-Hofbauer). By contrast, videos that included the #neurodiversity tag tended to be more educational in tone, but were far less popular. In other words, substantive advocacy content exists, yet flashy, easily digestible videos dominate the conversation by sheer volume of views. The study also noted a skew in who was represented: creators and subjects in these popular videos were primarily white, and few were healthcare professionals or experts. Adult autistic individuals did appear in many videos, but children were featured frequently as well (often in the #autism clips). This suggests that much of TikTok’s autism discourse centers on personal vignettes and catchy trends rather than professional guidance or diverse representation.
Even on visually-driven platforms like Instagram, a similar pattern can emerge. Advocacy posts that fit the “Instagram aesthetic” – such as pastel-colored infographics about autism traits or neatly packaged personal stories – spread widely, whereas nuanced or less cheerful content struggles to penetrate the feed. One commentator coined this phenomenon the rise of the “neurodivergent aesthetic,” noting how aspects of neurodivergence have been co-opted into a trend or personal brand. In this formulation, advocacy risks becoming performative: a curated online identity complete with cute stim toy unboxings, funny ADHD planner memes, and on-trend slogans, while glossing over the harder realities.
As Bridgette Hamstead put it,
“what was once a movement rooted in advocacy and systemic change is increasingly being repackaged as a curated online identity,”
with complex struggles reduced to quirky, relatable soundbites.
To be sure, making autism relatable isn’t inherently bad – it can pull more people into caring. But when relatability and entertainment value consistently trump depth, important parts of the autistic experience get lost. It’s easier to click “like” on a 30-second joke about hyper-fixating on a hobby than on a sobering post about an autistic adult’s difficulty accessing disability services. Thus, the algorithmic incentives of social media can encourage a kind of flattening of autistic narratives: highlighting common or cute traits while sidelining severe challenges or unconventional voices.
Misinformation in the masses
Perhaps the most troubling downside of autism’s social media boom is the spread of misinformation. Not all content shared under #autism (or by self-identified autism advocates) is accurate – in fact, much of it isn’t. Researchers from Drexel University recently examined TikTok’s most-viewed autism-related videos and found that only 27% contained accurate information (Aragon-Guevara). The rest was a mix of outright inaccuracies (41%) and overgeneralization (32%). Inaccurate videos included everything from pseudoscientific claims (like “a special diet cured my autism” or debunked anti-vaccine tropes) to misleading statements about causes and symptoms. Overgeneralized content often took one person’s experience and presented it as universal to all autistic people.
Worryingly, the study noted that engagement was no lower for misinformation – people “liked” and viewed inaccurate videos just as much as accurate ones.
One example: TikTok is rife with clips touting trivial quirks as “signs you might be autistic.” In these videos, creators list banal habits – e.g. needing to stir ice cream to a certain texture, having ‘hooded eyelids suggest they’re autism indicators. In reality, such traits are not diagnostic of autism at all. Many are just common human preferences being falsely pathologized. Yet thanks to TikTok’s algorithm, once a user engages with one “you might be autistic if…” video, the “For You Page” will serve up dozens more like it. The result is an echo chamber of self-reinforcing misinformation – a user who dips a toe in out of curiosity can quickly be inundated with dubious content that feels authoritative simply due to repetition.
Experts are alarmed at this pattern. “Misinformation on social media enhances the dangers” of self-diagnosis and misunderstanding, warned Joseph O’Brien, a clinical social worker in behavioral health. He points out that social platforms’ algorithms can expose people to a steady flow of the same misinformation, which deepens their attachment to those false beliefs. Over time, a young person binging TikTok may convince themselves they have autism based on a random list of traits – and then dig into that identity with conviction. By the time they see a professional, they might resist contrary evidence, creating a “power struggle” between the clinician’s assessment and the client’s social-media-fueled self-diagnosis.
In O’Brien’s experience, the TikTok-driven self-diagnosis trend has “watered down” the public’s understanding of what an autism diagnosis truly means. Terms like autism (or ADHD, bipolar, etc.) are being used in ways professionals wouldn’t recognize. He notes that it’s now common for teens to arrive at initial therapy sessions convinced – based on internet content – that they have multiple serious conditions, often misusing clinical terminology.
It’s not just TikTok. Instagram Reels and YouTube also contain their share of dubious autism “education” by unqualified sources. And on Substack – a platform known for long-form content – one can find newsletters by self-proclaimed experts who may espouse fringe theories about autism. Unlike traditional publishers or academic journals, social media and open platforms typically lack fact-checking, so misinformation can flourish unchecked.
In the words of Drexel researchers, social media’s unfiltered nature allows misleading content to “spread quickly and easily” to mass audiences. The consequences of this misinformation surge are tangible. Clinicians worry that the meaning of an ASD diagnosis is being eroded and that resources could be misallocated. “If ‘everyone’ identifies as having ASD, then the diagnosis loses its meaning for the community of people who have worked to obtain visibility and accommodations,” O’Brien explained.
In other words, when autism is portrayed as something almost anyone might have (based on superficial self-analysis), the very real needs of those on the spectrum can be downplayed. Why push for autism-friendly hiring practices, or specialized services in schools, if the public starts to think of autism as a catch-all label so broad it’s essentially normal? There’s a risk that trivializing autism as a mere personality quirk could undermine the push for accommodations, because a “watered down” understanding fails to appreciate the disability aspects.
Misinformation also directly harms individuals. Some autistic people and their families have been led astray by false “cures” or unsupported therapies found online. Anti-vaccine myths, resurrected on social platforms, have scared parents and contributed to public confusion. And for those who are autistic, seeing aspects of their condition misrepresented can be distressing. As one autistic writer lamented in an essay, TikTok often trivializes her condition – with funny skits and stereotypes dominating the feed, it can feel like her daily struggles are being reduced to a joke or fad. This kind of content can invalidate the experiences of people on the spectrum: if the prevailing narrative is that autism is “not a big deal” or just a collection of cute quirks, those who experience profound challenges can feel even more invisible or misunderstood.
Trivialization and “autism esthetics”
Beyond outright inaccuracies, social media can foster a softer kind of misinformation: trivialization. This is the process of presenting autism in a shallow or aestheticized way that glosses over its realities. On TikTok and Instagram especially, there’s an increasing trend of what some call “aesthetic autism” content – polished, feel-good posts that treat neurodivergence as a trendy identity rather than a disability or a diagnosis. This includes pastel-infused graphics proclaiming “I’m autistic and proud” (often posted by non-autistic allies or corporate accounts during Autism Acceptance Month), or viral memes that reduce autism to one endearing trait (for example, “autistic people be like: [insert quirky habit]”). While usually well-intentioned, these portrayals can romanticize or sanitize autism.
A critical commentary from a neurodiversity advocate describes how social media visibility has led to the commodification and branding of neurodivergence. In this “neurodivergent aesthetic,” being autistic or ADHD is sometimes treated like a fashionable badge. We see neurodivergence marketed with cute symbols (the rainbow infinity sign replacing the puzzle piece), lifestyle products (fidget gadget companies targeting ads to self-identified neurodivergent folks), and a flood of quirky relatable reels. The core issue, as Hamstead notes, is that advocacy is at risk of turning into performance: influencers adopt neurodivergence as part of their personal brand and craft content that fits a certain image of autism or ADHD. Complex medical and psychological topics get oversimplified or distorted for the sake of engagement – after all, a snappy soundbite or visually pleasing post gets more likes than a nuanced explainer. This trend often trivializes neurodivergent struggles. Many viral posts reduce autism to “cute or quirky traits, ignoring the very real systemic barriers neurodivergent people face in employment, education, and healthcare,” as one analysis observes.
Yes, an autistic person might have an adorable special interest in trains – but they might also be unable to find a job due to workplace ableism, or unable to live independently without support. The memes about “adorable stim toys” rarely mention the meltdowns or mental health issues that can accompany sensory overload and communication difficulties. In short, by focusing only on the palatable parts of autism, social media can create a skewed perception that autism is mostly a mild, even “cool,” identity and not also a source of significant challenges for many.
Critically, this aestheticized narrative tends to favor those autistic people who fit the social media mold – often white, middle-class, verbal individuals with lower support needs. They can talk about their autism in cute or inspiring ways that make viewers feel good. But who gets left out? Autistic people who don’t fit the Instagrammable image.
BIPOC autistic individuals, for example, are rarely visible in these trends. They face additional hurdles like underdiagnosis and racism, and their reality doesn’t neatly align with the “quirky neurodivergent” trope. Non-speaking autistics and those with high support needs are similarly sidelined. It’s hard for someone who needs full-time care or who cannot use mouth-speech to compete with a bubbly vlogger doing an autism Q&A – in fact, many such individuals cannot safely or comfortably use these platforms at all without accommodations. As a result, their stories are seldom heard in the mainstream online narrative.
Even within the autistic community online, there can be tension and gatekeeping that contribute to this imbalance. Some popular autistic influencers (often those with less pronounced support needs) focus on uplifting messages like “autism is my superpower,” which, while empowering to some, might alienate those who experience autism as a disability. Conversely, some advocates fiercely criticize any portrayal of autism as challenging, accusing parents or clinicians of “ableism” if they talk about the more disabling sides of autism.
On TikTok, parents of kids with severe autism have reported harassment from viewers or other autistics accusing them of exploitation or of making autism look bad. A mother writing for the National Council on Severe Autism noted that higher-need autistics and their caregivers often feel bullied off the platform: for instance, non-speaking autistics showing intense behaviors have been told “don’t act like that, you make us look bad,” and parents using symbols like the puzzle piece have been dogpiled by commenters. Interestingly, #autismmoms also harass late-diagnosed autistic people merely because they do not present like their sons who were diagnosed early. Such harassment silences voices, further contributing to an uneven representation of autism online. The result is a kind of survivorship bias in autism social media: the voices that remain loudest are those that face the fewest barriers to being online and accepted.
Algorithmic bias: what gets amplified
Why do certain kinds of autism content dominate our feeds? A big factor is the design of social media algorithms. TikTok’s algorithm, for example, is laser-focused on one thing: watch time and engagement. It shows you more of what you interact with, seeking to keep you scrolling as long as possible.
TikTok’s algorithm is agnostic to truth or balance – it doesn’t care what information is in a video, only that you watched it and shared it.
Thus, emotionally-charged or entertaining content spreads, regardless of accuracy. In the context of autism, that means a dramatic personal story or a relatable comedy skit is likely to be boosted into millions of users’ feeds, whereas a dry breakdown of diagnostic criteria or a nuanced discussion of policy will not. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, one study found that educational neurodiversity content was less viewed than entertaining autism videos.
The algorithm quite literally favors simplification – content that is easy to consume, sparks a quick emotion, or validates a suspicion you already have. This creates echo chambers.
Moreover, the algorithms and user preferences they reinforce skew toward personal narratives over broad representation. Heartwarming or intriguing personal stories tend to get algorithmic love. These stories can indeed be powerful and educational. But they may collectively present a narrow slice of autism (visible or feel-good slice). The less camera-friendly realities (an autistic person’s harrowing experience with co-occurring epilepsy or a critical scientific discussion) rarely surface because they either aren’t being created as content, or don’t catch the same engagement fire when they are.
Long-form platforms like Substack present an interesting counterpoint. They are not driven by the same kind of algorithmic feed (readers usually subscribe intentionally to certain writers), which means they can allow deeper dives into autism topics that might not go viral in a TikTok format. On Substack, autistic writers have penned in-depth essays – for example, debunking pop-psychology myths circulating on social media, or sharing memoir-style reflections on being autistic in a neurotypical world. These essays often appeal to a more niche but dedicated audience seeking substance over instant virality. In some cases, professionals and researchers have also taken to Substack to explain nuances of autism science or to critique trends they see on other platforms. The platform’s design (email-based distribution, no endless algorithmic scroll) can mitigate the “soundbite culture” problem. However, Substack can also become a haven for siloed communities: one might subscribe only to newsletters that align with one’s existing views (be they neurodiversity-affirming or more pathology-focused), thus still limiting exposure to the full spectrum of perspectives. Additionally, some content in Substack requires payment and subscription, which deters access.
In summary, the architecture of social media influences the message. Algorithms amplify content that is simplified, emotional, and broadly engaging – which in the context of autism often means catchy personal takes and digestible memes. Meanwhile, more complex or challenging content, or voices that don’t fit the algorithm’s mold, remain in the shadows. This dynamic doesn’t just affect individual understanding; it collectively shapes society’s concept of “autism.”
Broader implications for understanding Autism
The online portrayal of autism has ripple effects beyond the internet. One notable trend is the rise in self-diagnosis. As awareness increases, many people who never considered themselves autistic are now questioning if they might be on the spectrum – often after encountering relatable posts or checklists on social media. On the one hand, this can be positive: it’s well-documented that many autistic individuals (especially women, people of color, and those without intellectual disability) have been overlooked by traditional diagnostic frameworks. For some, stumbling upon an autism TikTok video is the first step toward recognizing longstanding differences and eventually seeking a formal evaluation. Social media has provided a vocabulary (think terms like “masking,” “neurotypical,” “special interest”) that helps people make sense of themselves. Some in the autistic community defend self-diagnosis as valid, given barriers to healthcare and the often prohibitively high cost of adult autism assessments. They argue that self-identification, when done thoughtfully, can be an empowering form of taking ownership of one’s neurotype.
However, as we’ve explored, there are significant downsides when self-diagnosis is driven by questionable online information. The boom in self-diagnosis also shifts public perception of autism. Surveys have found that far more people believe they are neurodivergent than have formal diagnoses – 19% of Americans identify as neurodivergent. One-fifth of Americans have been diagnosed (7%) or have self-diagnosed (13%) themselves with ADHD. While only 2% of respondents said they’ve been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum, 10% of Americans believe they are autistic. In the same survey, one-quarter of Black Americans (25%) say they had never heard of ASD, compared to 13% of white Americans.
If 10% of the public starts informally identifying as autistic (even if only ~2% actually meet clinical criteria, hypothetically), the term “autistic” begins to take on a much broader, looser meaning in everyday use. This can dilute recognition of those who have significant support needs. As O’Brien observed, when everyone casually claims a neuro-label, it “downplays the significance” of these diagnoses and can even disenfranchise those who went through the diagnostic process. He further notes that if autism is treated as so common that it seems “normal,” people may question the necessity of the accommodations and services that autistic individuals fight for
Another implication is on access to services and support. On one side, increased awareness via social media has led some previously undiagnosed adults to pursue evaluation, which can connect them to resources (therapies, support groups, workplace accommodations) they lacked. It’s not rare to hear someone say, “I watched a YouTube video about a woman describing autism in females and suddenly my whole life made sense – I sought a diagnosis and finally got support.” In this sense, the online discourse can be a bridge to much-needed services for late-diagnosed individuals. On the other side, there’s concern that some who self-identify might not follow through to get a professional diagnosis – and thus might not access services that require an official label. Additionally, if misinformed self-dx leads people to request autism evaluations in large numbers, it could strain healthcare systems or result in frustration. It’s a delicate balance: we want people who truly need support to realize it and seek it, but we also want to avoid a scenario where misinformation sends many down a path that isn’t right for them.
The understanding of autism as a disability is also at stake. The neurodiversity movement – amplified by social media – has reframed autism as a natural variation of human neurology, not something to be “cured.” This has been empowering and has reduced stigma in many ways. But there is a nuanced distinction between saying “autism is not inherently a disease” and saying “autism is not disabling at all.” Some online narratives, especially the more aestheticized ones, risk suggesting the latter – that autism is just a difference, maybe even a superpower, and not a disability. For a subset of autistic people (often those represented in viral content), autism indeed might not be experienced as a disability; it might be a source of nonstandard thinking that they cherish, with challenges largely mitigated by adaptation.
Yet for others on the spectrum (including me), autism is profoundly disabling: it can involve intellectual disability, severe communication impairments, epilepsy, sensory torment, and an array of co-occurring conditions. The dominant social media narratives often skew toward minimizing the “disorder” aspect of autism, focusing on strengths or benign differences. Consequently, the general public – especially younger generations getting their info from TikTok and Instagram – might come to view autism as not a big deal. This could foster a kind of inadvertent stigma or dismissal such as - “Autism is no excuse, I saw this TikToker with autism and she’s fine.” In other words, those whose autism is visible or significantly disabling may face new skepticism or pressure to mask, due to the misperception that all autism looks like the online influencers.
Finally, there’s the risk of stigma in another direction – stigma against the very influencers and self-advocates who have milder presentations. Some individuals with “profound autism” (a term some researchers now use to denote Level 3 autism with high support needs) and their families feel that the neurodiversity conversation on social media is dominated by people who “don’t understand what real autism is like.” They sometimes voice resentment that tech-savvy autistic advocates speak over them or dismiss their struggles. In turn, neurodiversity advocates bristle at the suggestion that they aren’t “autistic enough” or that they shouldn’t represent autism. This schism has played out in online forums and comment wars: e.g., a well-known autistic advocate might be accused of presenting an unrealistically rosy picture, while they might retort that parents or clinicians focusing on severe cases are fear-mongering.
Such conflicts highlight that autism online is not a monolith – it’s a cacophony of voices with different lived experiences and agendas. When respectfully balanced, this diversity could enrich understanding; but often the loudest or most algorithm-friendly voices drown out others, leading to echo chambers and infighting rather than mutual learning.
Toward a more nuanced narrative
The current portrayals of autism on English-language social media are a mixed bag: they have unquestionably raised awareness and given autistic people avenues for self-expression that simply did not exist a generation ago, but they have also introduced new misconceptions and inequities in whose stories get told. Recognizing this dual reality is the first step toward improvement. Researchers like those at Drexel’s Autism Institute emphasize the need for stakeholders – autistic individuals, families, and clinicians alike – to be aware of social media’s influence and its unfiltered content.
Clinicians, for example, might do well to ask patients what they’ve been seeing online about autism, in order to gently correct myths and validate truths. Conversely, content creators who are raising autism awareness might consider collaborating with or citing professionals to ensure accuracy, especially when addressing clinical topics. There are also calls for the scientific and medical community to engage more actively online. The Drexel study found that videos by healthcare professionals were more likely to be accurate, but such videos were relatively rare on TikTok.
Some experts advocate that more clinicians and researchers take to platforms (or to accessible venues like Substack newsletters) to share evidence-based information in appealing ways – essentially, to flood the zone with better content. If a teen’s feed features not just peers doing hashtag challenges but also a psychologist debunking common myths in a fun, empathetic manner, that could tilt the balance toward better understanding. Importantly, professionals must do this in partnership with autistic people, not in a paternalistic way. The voices of autistic adults – including those with high support needs – should be amplified in these efforts. As one study highlighted, it’s vital to have a greater variation of autism information online, and to involve the autistic community in creating it. Diverse representation – across the spectrum of support needs, across races and genders – can ensure that no single narrative becomes the only narrative.
Social media itself is unlikely to change its algorithmic reward systems anytime soon, but users and creators can push for small improvements. On some platforms, community guidelines could be updated to discourage blatantly false health information (TikTok has started cracking down on some medical misinformation). The addition of disclaimers or pointers to resources in videos discussing diagnoses could be another measure. Meanwhile, autistic communities on these platforms can continue to hold each other accountable to an extent – calling out misinformation or harmful trends when they see them, and uplifting content from marginalized autistic voices.
In the end, social media will continue to be a powerful double-edged sword for autism representation. The key will be harnessing its benefits – the empowerment, the community, the awareness – while mitigating its harms – the misinformation, trivialization, and exclusion. Social media, in and of itself, is not the enemy. The real threat seems to be our inadequate health literacy.
We must approach what we see on our screens with critical thinking and compassion. Autism is a deeply complex spectrum of human experience. No 60-second video or single Substack essay (this one included) can capture its full breadth. But by engaging with a tapestry of perspectives – scientific research, firsthand accounts from across the spectrum, and voices of both autistic individuals and allies – we can move closer to a nuanced understanding. Social media has opened the door; now it’s on all of us, creators and consumers alike, to ensure that what walks through is truthful, respectful, and representative of all autistic people.
References
Bakombo S, Ewalefo P, Konkle ATM. The Influence of Social Media on the Perception of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Content Analysis of Public Discourse on YouTube Videos. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 13;20(4):3246. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20043246. PMID: 36833941; PMCID: PMC9961260. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9961260/
Skafle I, Gabarron E, Nordahl-Hansen A. Social media shaping autism perception and identity. Autism. 2024 Oct;28(10):2489-2502. doi: 10.1177/13623613241230454. Epub 2024 Feb 22. PMID: 38389125; PMCID: PMC11487866. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11487866/
Steiner-Hofbauer V, Pintér YA, Mittmann G. Comparing the portrayal of #autism and #neurodiversity on TikTok: creators, content, and representation. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2025 Mar 11. English. doi: 10.1007/s10354-025-01076-w. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 40067399. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40067399/
Aragon-Guevara D, Castle G, Sheridan E, Vivanti G. The Reach and Accuracy of Information on Autism on TikTok. J Autism Dev Disord. 2023 Aug 6. doi: 10.1007/s10803-023-06084-6. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37544970. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37544970/
Molinar, Irene, "THE PATRIARCHY BECOMES THAT GIRL: TIKTOK AND THE MEDIATIZATION OF HEGEMONIC FEMININITY" (2023). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 1644. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/1644
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Data & Statistics on Autism Spectrum Disorder. CDC. Updated June 8, 2021. Accessed April 8, 2025. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/autism/data-research/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html