Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal

Survivors may turn to self-proclaimed online advocates for support and to amplify their message. The reality is that they have their own agenda.

When you DM an “influencer” to “raise awareness,” are you dealing with a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”?

These seeming advocates may appear to promise sympathy and care. Who could look away from their extensive platform access, immediate validation, and the support of a broader community?

For individuals experiencing the isolation that frequently accompanies trauma, contact with a high-profile influencer can seem to offer a meaningful pathway forward. This is especially true if their immediate circle and/or the legal system have failed them.

However, in the social media environment, personal trauma frequently functions as content.

Content, in turn, serves as a form of currency that generates engagement and visibility for the creator.

When private experiences of trauma are shared with online creators, the distinction between genuine advocacy and exploitation can become unclear.

What begins as an effort to obtain protection or assistance may instead introduce significant risks to the pursuit of formal justice, particularly if the recipient prioritizes their own objectives over the survivor’s circumstances.

Remember, these individuals are not licensed therapists or legal professionals. No formal confidentiality agreements are in place, and the interaction does not constitute a professional client relationship.

In at least one case, a survivor contacted a self-proclaimed advocate and shared detailed information without appropriate professional safeguards or boundaries.

Horrifyingly, that information was then provided to the predator’s defense team.

The defense utilized the available digital communications to create a “vigilante narrative.”

The survivor had expressed a belief that other family members may also have been victims of the same perpetrator.

Outreach to the online advocate, which included efforts to publicize the situation and encourage additional accounts from others, was presented by the defense as evidence of a coordinated vigilante effort rather than a standard individual pursuit of justice through legal channels.

In the end, accused was found not guilty because the evidence presented did not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. While the vigilante angle was only a piece of the puzzle, it didn’t help.

There is a notable irony in this dynamic. The alleged perpetrator of the victim was an unlicensed marital counselor. He solicited information from an alleged sexual abuse victim by phone.

As the victim described her abuse, he pleasured himself.

Exploitive advocates represent a form of compounded difficulty for survivors.

Efforts to disclose experiences can lead to unintended consequences when shared with parties whose motivations include personal, narrative, or professional gain.

This may compromise legal proceedings while the involved advocate experiences no legal consequences.

So if you are a survivor, the message is: Your boundaries have already been violated. Please be careful who you trust.

Legal Disclaimer: The individuals and case details discussed in this post involve allegations. In accordance with the law, all parties are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The purpose of this post is strictly to educate, raise awareness, and warn survivors about the serious risks associated with navigating digital spaces and unvetted online advocates. Written with the help of AI. AI image.