Should people meet in person more?

[Outis]

People often say that being a map was easier in the 70s and 80s but I wonder how much of that is due to people meeting and working on projects offline more than today?

I mean you could still get into trouble as a map in the 70s and 80s but recent decades has seen a massive clampdown against online advocacy and anything map related online. Everything is monitored and collected, data is scanned, calls monitored and data collected and held until it's able to be broken or useful for some other purpose.

But we still have the option to live offline, that hasn't been taken away from us and has a lot of advantages.

- Keep notes on paper and you can burn or shred paper any time. Compare that to digital storage, even encrypted storage particular which situations such as the UK frantically backdooring and cracking anything cryptography related that they can.

- Meeting in person is social and I still believe the best ideas and advocacy efforts happen face to face. Look at businesses, they have home working these days but it's generally recognised that white boarding or brain storming in person is much more effective that a Zoon call.

- It's safer frankly. Sure there's risks meeting in person but there are risks meeting online. Take sensible safety precautions, don't meet up for anything illegal but for harmless social activities to get to know each other and build local networks.

- Local advocacy is grass roots advocacy and effective advocacy. If everyone was looking at whats happening locally and getting involved as a citizen then it would make a difference. I don't mean turning up to town hall meetings and announcing your map agenda but it can be small things. Your kids are at a school and some policy is announced that's draconian with maps used as an excuse, then push back as a parent. Local political issues, local press issues, local community issues. Online I feel should be where local groups bridge together but it shouldn't be the primary place to live or operate because it's risky and less effective.

For example, I've had discussions on some issues that impact maps, with people I know in person, and I've changed minds and had an impact. I've done plenty of advocacy online but I don't think I've had any real impact. I also think my offline activities have been safer because when I've met with a map to discuss an idea or project its been while out walking in a park or out in the country for example where I know no one is listening or recording. If people did that more then it would frustrate the hell out of those who are waging their war against maps.

[FairBlueLove]

- Meeting in person is social and I still believe the best ideas and advocacy efforts happen face to face. Look at businesses, they have home working these days but it's generally recognised that white boarding or brain storming in person is much more effective that a Zoon call.

This is the most important aspect, I think. I would add that it makes a big difference to know that the person you are talking with is not a bot or any other fakery what can nowadays happen online.

Regarding the other aspects, I'm still not 100% convinced. Take, for example, the safety aspect. How do you reach out for people to meet? How do you cope with possible infiltrators? It just takes one to disrupt everything.

I've done plenty of advocacy online but I don't think I've had any real impact.

Well, just because it is impossible to quantify, it doesn't mean you didn't have any impact. And your online written activity has the potential to reach someone every day in the future until the website which hosts it will be alive.

[Concerned Coffee Mug]

Absolutely, yes. The internet is fine, but it can never replace the benefit you get from actually meeting in person. Meeting in person also has the added benefit of encouraging networking in real life, which is essential if we want to ever have a real world community where we can support each other. If people ever get in trouble, it will be that real world community that they can fall back on, after all. The internet is a shadow of the real thing; we shouldn't forget that.

[Outis]

Regarding the other aspects, I'm still not 100% convinced. Take, for example, the safety aspect. How do you reach out for people to meet? How do you cope with possible infiltrators? It just takes one to disrupt everything.

I hear your point but I'd say you're more likely to have infiltrators online since they are invisible behind a screen while in person there's a real person you can see, talk to, read their body language, get to know, even meet their family sometimes.

Also, it depends why you're meeting them. If you're arranging to meet someone for illegal purposes then sure, it's super high risk and shouldn't be done. But if you're meeting someone for a beer, to discuss life, problems, projects, then that isn't illegal and there's nothing to out really.

All these pedo hunters you read about are luring people out on the pretense to do something illegal such as pretending to be a pervy parent or kid. I don't think meeting Ted to talk about his plans to go on a radio show or write a book are what draws anti's out, it's a waste of their time.

Now I've met double digit number of maps in person. Never for anything illegal, it was either to shoot the breeze or talk about some idea. I've never had any problems, but I've learned a lot about the community, projects, history and I feel I have friends who I can trust and rely on if I ever needed to as a map.

I think that's right

[PorcelainLark]

I wish Europe had something like the b4uact conference.

[Someone]

I totally think people should meet in person in theory. I would love to meet other MAPs, but how does one meet a MAP? To be frank I am way too paranoid of LE or be outed in a social community. i am very comfortable about being a MAP but also paranoid about it at the same time

[PorcelainLark]

To be frank I am way too paranoid of LE or be outed in a social community.

What's "LE?"

[Aspire6]

What's "LE?"

LE: Law Enforcement
LEO: Law Enforcement Organization/Officer
LEA: Law Enforcement Agency/Agent

[FairBlueLove]

Regarding the other aspects, I'm still not 100% convinced. Take, for example, the safety aspect. How do you reach out for people to meet? How do you cope with possible infiltrators? It just takes one to disrupt everything.

I hear your point but I'd say you're more likely to have infiltrators online since they are invisible behind a screen while in person there's a real person you can see, talk to, read their body language, get to know, even meet their family sometimes.

Yes, but that screen is also protecting you.

The other question is also still valid: How do you reach out for people to meet? (and, I would add, how do you "vet" these persons before meeting them?).

As a side note, this will become even more difficult here on Mu, given the last update of the rules.

I feel like we are in a Catch-22 situation for in-person meetings.

Also, it depends why you're meeting them. If you're arranging to meet someone for illegal purposes then sure, it's super high risk and shouldn't be done. But if you're meeting someone for a beer, to discuss life, problems, projects, then that isn't illegal and there's nothing to out really.

Obviously I'm referring to meetings without any illegal purpose. Even so, especially for self-declared pro-C like myself, I see how meeting with another MAP could be dangerous. Maybe, yes, I'm being too paranoid, but let's say this MAP turns out to be a radical and irrational anti-C. This thing could also happen through a perspective change over time, that is, you meet him as a moderate person and then over time he becomes more irrational and bigot. Do you think the probability is low that he will then make a big fuss and expose you to others?

Don't get me wrong, I would love to meet other MAPs in person (and I'm confident this can happen within my lifetime), but I'm trying to point out all possible issues.

I think that's right

I think you missed the quote here.

[BLueRibbon]

As a side note, this will become even more difficult here on Mu, given the last update of the rules.

If people with a track record of constructive participation want to exchange non-identifying e-mail addresses, we are unlikely to intervene. For example, if you and the author of this topic wished to initiate such contact, there would be no problem at all.

People with very few posts using the board as a way to set up messenger chats for questionable purposes, including possible entrapment, is the concern.