A direct, if naive, approach

[WandersGlade]

I've spoken to MEDAL and to Peace about this idea before, so some of you may be aware of it. Basically, the idea is to try to personally persuade leaders of anti-pedophile organizations to moderate they're views.
A name that frequently comes up, when I read about news relating to laws concerning MAPS is the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Usually in the context of applying pressure to politicians to tighten laws.
You may say "how could they ever change their minds?" I derived the idea from reading about Patty Wetterling's involvement in the campaign to reform the sex offender registry. My thought is that if the figureheads of child abuse activism could be persuaded that their approach doesn't really help children, you could challenge prejudice more easily across society.
I think the prejudice against MAPs is stoked by some of these organizations to a level which is higher than it would otherwise be.

If you were to write a letter to one of the board/staff members, what would you say?

[BLueRibbon]

My cynical opinion is that these organizations function more like businesses. Their funding depends on stoking fear. To persuade them to alter their approach, we'd first need to persuade them of a financial incentive. What could that be?

[WandersGlade]

My cynical opinion is that these organizations function more like businesses. Their funding depends on stoking fear. To persuade them to alter their approach, we'd first need to persuade them of a financial incentive. What could that be?

I'm not sure about that. I think some of them must believe what they're doing is right. Also, winning over figureheads would undermine the influence of those who are only in it for the money within their organizations.
But for the sake of argument, perhaps by encouraging scope creep: e.g. expanding into therapy for MAPs, or studying the unethical behavior amongst pedophile hunters. By putting a spin on things which are in MAPs interest which could be framed as serving their goals. Over time, if fear mongering has diminishing returns, an organization could be financially motivated to switch focus. Don't know if it's realistically possible though.

[Fragment]

I think it could definitely be part of the fight, but I'm not sure about results. Even Prostasia, which frames itself as a child protection agency, received backlash from other child protection groups for having a different approach to protection.

But letters/ emails to people who hate us isn't necessarily a bad thing. Environmental activists letter bomb politicians, including right wingers. Hopefully we can build enough momentum that we can have MAPs do the same and potentially get a response.