Thought about moving offline in the future

[CantChainTheSpirit]

The online world is increasingly becoming hostile to maps. Countries are passing ever increasingly restrictive requirements on sites to collect information on people, report maps, block map voices, remove content that might present maps in any kind of positive light. Any kind of free speech when it comes to maps is being eroded and I think this trend will continue for a while at least. Maps are being blamed for anything and everything. Don't like that Chinese mobile app or game? Blame the maps and take it down or make it unusable.

So I think the time has come for maps to return to the offline more and think about offline communities and activities. If we can't live online, then thrive offline.

One idea was to form a local online community initially, totally anonymously and designed to protect people, but allow people in my local city and region to communicate. Reassure people that they're not alone or unique in the area and discuss local subjects. Into board games? the local sports team? Looking for local activities and things to do? Struggling with local issues like transport or work? Not focus on map subjects since I do think dwelling too much on the issues maps face can be depressing for people and make it harder to break out into other activities. But a local online map community to just support each other. So more of a support network.

How to find people to join? Well advertise in local groups such as social media groups and advertisement channels. Where do they actually communicate? Well a secure forum much like here, or channels on e2e encrypted messenger apps etc. Not many, just a few channels that protect people. Look out for each other, online socialise but with a local twist.

Then in time, go offline. Build offline communities so a cinema night or go to an event, paint ball, night out in town, gaming, whatever. But focus on it as a support network. A byproduct is local friendships are made and local communities grow. Yes there will be some bad actors but not too many and since the focus is on it being a support network then it's hard to attack. I mean bad actors could sit outside map lawyer offices or courts or map support therapy centers, but they don't, because they're part of map support services, so focus on it fitting more inside that type of framework. Don't be hyper secretive, welcome therapists to join and pitch their services, other support services such as porn addiction therapy services, but with strict rules about protecting identities and being respectful.

I think it would help people and in many ways be safer that online as communities grow. Start with one or two communities but then have a website where people can put their location in and find their nearest community. Build a network of communities.

Thoughts?

I also think if the world is to accept maps then we have to eventually come offline. From gay rights to womens rights, it was offline communities, people making friends, hanging out, that made a real difference. Besides, if we're unwelcome online then offline has to be where we live.

[OnionPetal]

I like the idea of a community based around support. Playing board games, having BBQs, etc. Community building is really important for activism.

Privacy and OpSec is going to be an issue, and there are a lot of people who are just not comfortable with the risks of meeting people offline, with regard to this identity. As you suggested, there is a risk of infiltrators. Potentially an infiltrator could provoke a member to break the law, and then everyone in the group could be guilty by association, or falsely implicated in some sort of criminal 'paedophile ring' accusation. Or even someone who just has the 'wrong idea' about what a MAP is could cause a lot of trouble for a local group.

So risk mitigation would need to be prioritised in setting up some sort of community like this. Also prioritising privacy and staying completely legal. And I wonder if it would help to involve some respected professional(s) in the MAP mental health space, to oversee or be involved in setting up meetings, etc. There are a lot of directions something like this could go in, for people who want to organise local meetups. It could be private, invite-only groups based on trusted community contacts. Or it could be more of an open group, like a non-profit organisation run by mental health 'professionals.' Whatever the structure, ideally it would grow as a supportive community over time. People are going to have different comfort levels with different models and organisational structures.

A challenge to implementing supportive local communities is the way that trusted MAPs in online communities seem to geographically spread out. Something like a conference might meet attendance objectives better, not just due to professional reputations, but because people travel from all over to attend conferences. I am not sure how these concepts might translate to a more informal, local support community. Is MAP identity too niche to bring about local turnout? Should local communities broaden their focus to include youth rights activists or other marginalised identities? Just something to consider.

If you are thinking more along the lines of deploying local chapters of a centralised organisation, why not explore the possibility of teaming up with or building off of existing non-profit organisations aimed at supporting MAP mental health, such as B4U-Act?

[CantChainTheSpirit]

Yes, all very good points and they align with what I was thinking.

Inviting mental health practitioners and other experts in the field would help to make it legitimate and practical. That isn't to say people who meet through the local group can't just hang out and make friends, but they can also seek support and help in areas from therapists to legal advice or practical help in areas such as finding work or dealing with being alone.

As you point out, there will be people against it so helping people to stay safe, legal would be important. That's why therapists and other organisations would help. People don't have to take advantage of them but having them available means there is help there if someone needs it. I mean a therapist could have a lot of patients and a small number may break the law, but that isn't a reason to get rid of the therapist. Keep a clear distinction so it's there to help maps to for connections, make friends, learn life skills, get access to any kind of help they feel they need and ultimately, find peace and friendship and be a good member of society. I'm not going to pretend people won't have urges or slip up ever, but if it's structured right and it offers help and support without taking on full responsibility for its members then I would hope it would be fine.

It's a good idea about partnering with established organisations.