Guidelines on Sharing Community Governance Practice, Research Ethics, and Anonymization
0. Quick reference for skimming
- Platform external sharing: trend-level descriptions + composite narratives by default
- User-identifying information: information that directly identifies a specific user is not presented on the Main Site; limited exceptions (consent-based public events, formal ethics verification, or historical curation), with least-traceable cooperation
- External research inside the Community: generally requires prior process + transparency + written permission
- Main Site citation: contact encouraged; we prefer dialogue to reduce misinterpretation
1. Why these guidelines exist
Lezismore is not "just a website." It is a way for sexual minorities to exist online with selective visibility—including the option to remain unseen—without being forced to trade dignity for legibility.
We operate with a dual-layer structure
- Main Site (public, searchable): our entry point and public discourse layer.
- Community (protected from easy indexing and casual extraction): designed to reduce search visibility and external capture, and built on the principle that participation should not require real-name, ID, or biometric verification.
At times, we may share governance insights or community-level trends externally—e.g., design choices, safety trade-offs, and mutual support under risk. Our purpose is to explain Lezismore's governance approach and to protect the many ways an anonymous queer community can be understood beyond flattened stereotypes.
These guidelines exist to keep a workable balance between privacy and measured, intentional presence—without turning community members into identifiable stories.
Important note: These guidelines describe our ethical approach and typical practices. They do not create contractual obligations beyond our Terms of Use and Community Guidelines. Where inconsistent, the Terms and Community Guidelines prevail.
2. Scope: what this page covers
This page focuses on three things:
- How the platform may (and may not) use community insights in governance reports, system explanations, or external exchange
- How external researchers, media, and non-profit partners should engage if they want to conduct research, recruitment, or citation inside the Community
- How citation of Main Site content can be handled in a way that prioritizes dialogue and reduces misinterpretation
(Other creative or publishing matters may adopt similar de-identification principles, but are not turned into a rigid, enforceable checklist on this page.)
3. Core principles
- Purpose minimization: use only what is necessary for the stated purpose—do not turn people into evidence.
- De-identification first: avoid direct or indirect identifiers, especially "mosaic" combinations (location + occupation + timestamp + unique life event).
- Prefer paraphrase and synthesis: we generally prioritize rewriting / summarizing / composite narratives over verbatim quotation.
- Do not expose user information: Main Site posts do not present information that directly identifies a specific user.
- Limited exceptions may apply, for example:
- Consent-based public submissions / special events where participants were informed in advance and explicitly agreed (via event-specific rules) to the scope of public visibility and traceability;
- Historical curation and archiving, such as site-history displays and year-by-year curation, where sources and preservation status are marked according to established citation standards, and where the working principle remains not pointing to an individual's information;
- Formal research ethics verification needs supported by a written request and appropriate safeguards.
In such exceptions, we aim to cooperate in the least-traceable way feasible (e.g., restricted visibility, access limited to reviewers, or alternative verification materials).
- Limited exceptions may apply, for example:
- A channel for concerns: if a community member feels uneasy about a disclosure or perceives identification risk because of the official main site article, they can contact us. We will assess and, where feasible, make proportional adjustments (e.g., further blurring, rewriting, removing specific passages).
Practical reality: online text can be edited, but once redistributed by third parties or included in irreversible publication channels, our ability to act is limited to what is within Lezismore's control.
4. External research & academic/media citation
We support research and cross-field dialogue. At the same time, we do not want research or reporting to create a sense of being "sampled" or "used."
Contact & permission
- Main Site content (public):
Main Site articles remain protected under copyright and licensing terms. For academic or non-profit use, beyond what falls under reasonable quotation/citation, we welcome you to contact us with scope and purpose. This helps us provide context and reduce misinterpretation. - Research inside the Community (fieldwork, recruitment, surveys, interviews, or citing Community discussions):
As a general rule, this requires prior contact and written permission, and should follow our existing Research process and Community Guidelines (including: no proxy posting, researcher identification, disclosure of research origin, and privacy/data-protection measures).
Citation practices
- Prefer de-identified paraphrase and summary; avoid detail mosaics that could enable re-identification.
- Avoid screenshots, verbatim dumps, or large-scale reproduction of Community text—especially where identification risk remains.
From "citation" to "dialogue"
We welcome researchers, NGOs, creators, and interdisciplinary partners to engage Lezismore as a conversation—not a one-off resource. Where feasible and without harming anonymity, we may offer context or other support so your work is more accurate and more respectful.
5. Governance citation and narrative mechanisms
References to community experience in governance reports, system explanations, or external exchange generally rely on:
Anonymization principles
- Trend-level descriptions: patterns, trade-offs, frictions, and governance choices—while avoiding identifiable cases as much as possible.
- Composite narratives: rewriting synthesized structures from multiple similar experiences to reduce the risk that any one real person becomes recognizable.
- Data minimization: using only the minimum detail necessary.
- No exposure of user information: not presenting information that directly identifies a specific user (with the limited exceptions described above). The emphasis is on mechanisms and ethics, not on making any individual's life legible for clicks.
Purpose and boundaries
Such references are generally used to improve platform governance, explain the ethics and risks of designing for anonymity, or share experience through international exchange.
Response mechanism
If a community member feels uneasy about content in a Main Site governance article, or faces identification risk because of it, please contact us. After assessment, we will, where feasible, make proportionate adjustments (for example, further blurring or rewriting). However, if the content has already been reproduced by third parties or circulated through other distribution channels, we will do what we can to address it, but only within the scope of Lezismore's control.
6. Contact
- Research collaboration & citation permissions: contact(at)lezismore.org
- Other collaboration & dialogue: see Ways to Collaborate