When platforms claim to support “diverse voices” but act otherwise, we need to start calling it what it is: performative inclusivity. My recent experience with Qwoted—a site that connects journalists with sources and publishers—exposed a troubling pattern of gatekeeping masked as quality control. And I’m not the only one noticing it.
I want to share this story not just to vent, but to shed light on the broader issue: how new, independent, and marginalized voices are systematically excluded from mainstream tools, even when those tools claim to champion diversity and equity in media.
The Setup: Two Sides, One Mission
I applied for a secondary publisher account on Qwoted because I run two distinct operations: one as a professional source, and one as a publisher via my platform lifesexplicit. The latter is a sex-positive media and expert-led content space designed to give voice to educators and professionals who are frequently censored, shadowbanned, or excluded from traditional publishing.
We’re not a content mill. We publish curated expert roundups, original resources, and educational guides in a space where truthful, compassionate, and uncensored information about sexuality and relationships is desperately needed.
Yet Qwoted rejected lifesexplicit as a legitimate publisher—without clear reasoning or access to public criteria.
What Followed: Opaque Policies & Contradictions
After my publisher request was denied, I reached out seeking clarity. I asked what specific eligibility criteria Qwoted uses to determine who gets accepted and who doesn’t—especially since nothing about these requirements is made public on their platform. I received a seemingly polite, polished response, which—when read closely—only deepened the contradictions.
Qwoted claimed to “foster diverse voices and support journalism across a broad spectrum of topics, including those that are frequently marginalized or stigmatized.” But in the very next breath, I was told:
“At this time, we do not typically approve publications with a UVM under 100k unless the journalist is a freelancer who also contributes to larger, established media outlets.”
Let’s pause there. So, established journalists with ties to legacy media can bypass your requirements, but small independent publishers—those working hard to create new ecosystems—are automatically locked out? That’s not inclusive. That’s gatekeeping in institutional drag. It rewards those already inside the system, while penalizing anyone daring to build something new.
It really sounded like:
You’re Not Big Enough to Matter—Love, Qwoted
I responded with critical but fair questions. I pointed out the absurdity of citing “diverse voices” while enforcing reach-based thresholds that inherently exclude niche and censored platforms—especially those of us working in sexuality, a space constantly suppressed by algorithms and shadowbanned on social media. I wrote:
"lifesexplicit is not a typical B2C outlet—it’s a two-sided platform offering carefully curated expert insights for the public while supporting a professional community of verified sex and relationship educators. Our roundups serve an educational function, not promotional fluff."
I also directly requested Qwoted’s formal complaints procedure, and asked what process exists for challenging these opaque, shifting standards. Not only did they not answer those questions—they never replied again. I followed up twice... Total silence. Eventually, they just removed my account altogether. They couldn’t take the heat—so they burned the bridge.
Let’s be clear: I wasn’t removed for breaching any policy or being disrespectful. I was removed because I asked legitimate, difficult questions that exposed a system lacking integrity. That’s the real problem—not just their criteria, but their unwillingness to engage in transparent, accountable dialogue.
Their justification for not publishing eligibility criteria was especially telling:
"The reason that we do not have these minimums posted is that we are constantly evolving and expanding our parameters as we grow."
Which, frankly, is just code for: we want the freedom to change the rules whenever we like, without scrutiny and without anyone we don't like having a chance to challenge us on the decisions we make.
This kind of flexibility isn’t progressive—it’s dangerous. It allows discrimination to hide in plain sight. When platforms make decisions that affect visibility, credibility, and professional opportunity—but refuse to document how those decisions are made—they create environments where bias thrives unchecked.
By failing to engage with thoughtful, principled feedback, Qwoted made it clear that they are not, in fact, prepared to support newer, independent, or marginalized voices in any meaningful way. They’re supporting some diversity—as long as it comes pre-approved by traditional media’s metrics.
What This Really Shows: Under scrutiny, Qwoted's integrity melts faster than its PR statements.
Qwoted’s actions speak louder than their messaging. They talk about supporting "stigmatized topics" and "diverse creators," but they enforce reach-based standards that naturally exclude those exact people. How many newer platforms—especially in censored fields—hit 100,000+ unique monthly visitors right away?
This is not just about me or lifesexplicit. This is a systemic issue. Many entrepreneurs, educators, and journalists working on the fringes of mainstream media—especially in sexuality, race, disability, or trauma—are locked out of visibility tools that should be supporting them.
And to any fellow professional who feels afraid to speak out because you're worried about your access, your network, or your visibility—I see you. I understand that fear. It’s exactly why these systems remain broken.
What We Need Now
We need platforms like Qwoted to do better. If they want to maintain credibility, they must:
- Publish clear, public eligibility criteria.
- Create formal processes for appeals or complaints.
- Stop punishing people for building alternative, independent platforms.
We also need each other. If you’ve experienced something similar—on Qwoted or anywhere else—I encourage you to speak up. Post. Share. Ask questions. Demand transparency. Even if you can’t risk it professionally, your voice still matters.
And if you know of better platforms that are genuinely committed to supporting emerging voices, I’d love to hear from you. We need to uplift those who are walking the talk.
Let’s not let polished PR statements cover up discrimination disguised as "standards." It’s time we name what’s happening and build something better.