On Site Censorship

This is commonplace on pretty much every digital medium nowadays. It sucks

I wouldn't know I only use here and yes it does suck. Autists get infantalised enough in general life I don't think we need it here too.

My response has also been "botted". I don't know why I donate to this organisation.

Gladly. Did you search the NAS service providers' directory? Yes, I am listed there, but not allowed to use my name in the forum.

I agree that anonymity should be an option, and I completely respect the right to post anonymously if one wishes. What I find patronising is that the NAS assumes that I am incapable of doing a risk assessment and making my own decision. As a regulated professional my details are out there already - my company is registered at Companies House, my personal details are on the professional register at Social Work England, the charity I am associated with is listed with the Charities Commission, I have a presence on some social media, although I have tightly locked-down profiles. With my full name, you can check my credentials. If I call myself " Expert 123" I could also claim to be a professor of psychiatry, a King's Counsel and a Papal Knight - I am none of those - BUT if I did so claim, there is no way anybody could prove otherwise.

I choose what information to post. Caveat scriptor - let the writer beware. I got my first death threat a few months into my first job as a social worker. My client (who I suspected was neurodivergent but undiagnosed)  had solved an interpersonal problem with a peer using two billiard balls in a sock, and when arrested he had a knife on him. He blamed me for the fact that he was having a holiday at Her Majesty's expense. It sort of goes with the territory. So yes, I take precautions, both online and in my working life.

My counter-argument is that on this forum we have individuals who claim to be "experts"  who are nothing of the sort. We have barrack-room lawyers who clearly have no idea what they are talking about.  Someone expressed an opinion (carefully not framed as advice in line with the rules) about the Mental Capacity Act. I posted a refutation.  The difference was that I am a registered social worker, and a Best Interests Assessor, and my opinion is based on seven years of postgraduate training and twenty-five years of experience. I quoted the legislation, and could, if challenged, back it up with caselaw. The refutation was "botted" for some reason, but was later reinstated, unedited. The misinformation was allowed to stay.

Ian.

By way of a demonstration, would you accept a telephone call from me on the number I've just found whilst you are still composing your reply?

Whilst I was replying, your post vanished. Here's my reply anyway to your criticsism of the anonymity aspect, I hope you find it a satisfactory explanation of that policy.

Ian. Prohibiting people from using their real names or supplying other personally identifying information, perhaps is less "patronising" than it is a realistic safety measure.  

The internet allows all of us to become "public figures" or "broadcasters".

You'll note that pretty much all public figures have to take basic security measures, to protect their privacy against fans (so they can have some time to themselves) and also against the insane individuals who might for unfathomable reasons develop a harmful fixation against them.   

Most of us members of the public are naive to the dangers inherent in public speaking, and untrained in our presentation skills, and more likely statistically to fall found of some random nutter who will also know we are a much "softer" target for their rage. 

I personally was exposed to someone who aggregated all the information I'd provided on a website over some years (name, occupation, approximate location) and published a comprehensive "doxxing" of what he thought was my C.V.including photo. At this point, my having a VERY common name and NO published C.V. or any other real "social media" prescence made him look a fool, as he'd "doxxed" some other poor guy... 

It was a teachable moment for me and confirmation, that what some people might call paranoia (or in this case patronising) is in fact just sensible precautions. 

Also, allowing people to hide behnd anonymity tends to allow them to "drop the mask" and speak their truth without fear of consequence. As a result we do get a better picture of how people really feel and think. Unlike face to face verbal conflict there is virtually no chance of it escalating into dangerous physical confromtation, which preserves peoples physical safety.

Whilst I was replying, your post vanished. Here's my reply anyway to your criticsism of the anonymity aspect, I hope you find it a satisfactory explanation of that policy.

Ian. Prohibiting people from using their real names or supplying other personally identifying information, perhaps is less "patronising" than it is a realistic safety measure.  

The internet allows all of us to become "public figures" or "broadcasters".

You'll note that pretty much all public figures have to take basic security measures, to protect their privacy against fans (so they can have some time to themselves) and also against the insane individuals who might for unfathomable reasons develop a harmful fixation against them.   

Most of us members of the public are naive to the dangers inherent in public speaking, and untrained in our presentation skills, and more likely statistically to fall found of some random nutter who will also know we are a much "softer" target for their rage. 

I personally was exposed to someone who aggregated all the information I'd provided on a website over some years (name, occupation, approximate location) and published a comprehensive "doxxing" of what he thought was my C.V.including photo. At this point, my having a VERY common name and NO published C.V. or any other real "social media" prescence made him look a fool, as he'd "doxxed" some other poor guy... 

It was a teachable moment for me and confirmation, that what some people might call paranoia (or in this case patronising) is in fact just sensible precautions. 

Also, allowing people to hide behnd anonymity tends to allow them to "drop the mask" and speak their truth without fear of consequence. As a result we do get a better picture of how people really feel and think. Unlike face to face verbal conflict there is virtually no chance of it escalating into dangerous physical confromtation, which preserves peoples physical safety.

Gladly. Did you search the NAS service providers' directory? Yes, I am listed there, but not allowed to use my name in the forum.

I agree that anonymity should be an option, and I completely respect the right to post anonymously if one wishes. What I find patronising is that the NAS assumes that I am incapable of doing a risk assessment and making my own decision. As a regulated professional my details are out there already - my company is registered at Companies House, my personal details are on the professional register at Social Work England, the charity I am associated with is listed with the Charities Commission, I have a presence on some social media, although I have tightly locked-down profiles. With my full name, you can check my credentials. If I call myself " Expert 123" I could also claim to be a professor of psychiatry, a King's Counsel and a Papal Knight - I am none of those - BUT if I did so claim, there is no way anybody could prove otherwise.

I choose what information to post. Caveat scriptor - let the writer beware. I got my first death threat a few months into my first job as a social worker. My client (who I suspected was neurodivergent but undiagnosed)  had solved an interpersonal problem with a peer using two billiard balls in a sock, and when arrested he had a knife on him. He blamed me for the fact that he was having a holiday at Her Majesty's expense. It sort of goes with the territory. So yes, I take precautions, both online and in my working life.

My counter-argument is that on this forum we have individuals who claim to be "experts"  who are nothing of the sort. We have barrack-room lawyers who clearly have no idea what they are talking about.  Someone expressed an opinion (carefully not framed as advice in line with the rules) about the Mental Capacity Act. I posted a refutation.  The difference was that I am a registered social worker, and a Best Interests Assessor, and my opinion is based on seven years of postgraduate training and twenty-five years of experience. I quoted the legislation, and could, if challenged, back it up with caselaw. The refutation was "botted" for some reason, but was later reinstated, unedited. The misinformation was allowed to stay.

Ian.

By way of a demonstration, would you accept a telephone call from me on the number I've just found whilst you are still composing your reply?