Social media is a very powerful tool that can give voice to a multitude of underrepresented communities. The ease in which social media allows for story-sharing and discussion makes it a popular option among many looking to revolutionize the act of storytelling, particularly as it relates to sharing stories that were previously hidden. One of the results of this revolution is the emergence of anonymous reporting platforms. Anonymous reporting platforms are, at their best, an accessible option for marginalized, oppressed or underrepresented communities to share important stories and experiences in order to create community awareness. But at their worst, they are dangerously susceptible tools for further abuse and harassment of these vulnerable groups.

Anonymous reporting platforms are rooted in good intentions. These platforms are meant to bring stories previously hidden by oppressive structures to light. The sharing of these stories is validating not only for those who share their personal experiences, but the larger community, who may now be able to see a reflection of their own stories or selves in the media. By creating and holding space for those with so few accessible outlets, anonymous reporting services can fill in massive gaps in exclusionary discourse and redefine what it means to be a reputable source. Using social media in itself is a humanitarian act that increases accessibility and creates new, monumental digital archives. Anonymity is perhaps the most important aspect of these reporting platforms, as it frees vulnerable participants from retribution when deciding to share a personal story or experience. This becomes especially important when these stories revolve around serious topics of oppression, discrimination or harassment.

However, the fact remains that anonymous reporting of any kind is prone to abuse. In making these systems accessible, organizers must break down exclusive barriers, whether those be formal interviews, corroborating stories, collecting witnesses and more. While the removal of these barriers is great in that it allows many more people to utilize reporting platforms available to them, it is unfortunate that these barriers are what provides validity and trust between the reader and writer. With accessibility, sharing stories is not always about ensuring they are entirely, factually correct ⁠— and this is both good and bad. Constructing a community of victims where there was none before is hard work, and participation of marginalized communities often necessitates breaking down these barriers for a greater good. Yet, when accessibility precedes accountability, these reporting platforms can easily be weaponized by malicious users to tarnish credibility and trust established among a community.

Anonymity has always called the truth into question. To be clear, the Editorial Board cannot stress enough the importance of believing survivors and those who come forward with their stories first. The likelihood of false reporting is far outweighed by the necessity of sharing victims’ stories. Still, anonymous reporting platforms can be weaponized through no fault of their own. In fact, their susceptibility to harassment or misuse is often enhanced by their progressive goals of diversity, equity and inclusion.

The question then becomes how to remedy exclusionary and inaccessible reporting processes without calling the validity of reports into question. While we are not at all calling for the removal or disbandment of anonymous reporting platforms, we do believe that a compromise must be reached between these binary reporting options. Everyone deserves accessible and reliable reporting, especially as it relates to accounts of discrimination or abuse. But of course, this is no easy task. The process of reporting remains very different for someone who is queer, nonwhite, a woman, nonbinary, disabled, etc. than for someone of the dominant social group. We have to be aware of these disparities and their dire consequences if we are ever to correct historically exclusive judicial and criminal justice systems.

While the goals of anonymous reporting platforms are great, the fact that we even need these services is a disservice to marginalized communities already. Just as anonymity can create gaps in knowledge or validity, so too can unjust law enforcement. Power imbalances between those making and filing reports creates a pattern of underreporting and an overwhelming distrust in services which are meant to protect everyone. Rather than offer survivors only two pathways to story-sharing, we must work to create a system that is official, but approachable. Reputable, but accessible. Then, we can finally work to fill in gaps from all sides, creating the inclusive model of storytelling we need to fully grasp broader issues of discrimination.