The Rise of the Online Domestic Abuse Advocate: Why We Need to Ask More Questions
Social media has transformed advocacy.
Anyone with a smartphone can create an account, describe themselves as an advocate, build an audience and begin commenting on some of the most difficult issues imaginable: domestic abuse, family breakdown, criminal allegations, child protection and mental health.
That accessibility can be a force for good. Genuine survivors can find communities they never had before, and campaigners can highlight failures that might otherwise remain invisible.
But I believe we also need to start asking some uncomfortable questions about the growing world of self-appointed online domestic abuse advocates.
What actually makes someone an advocate?
The word advocate sounds authoritative.
But a social-media biography describing somebody as a “domestic abuse advocate” does not, by itself, tell you what qualifications, training, professional experience, safeguarding procedures or accountability they have.
That matters.
Domestic abuse is not internet entertainment. It involves real people, children, criminal investigations, family-court proceedings and, sometimes, risks to life.
People seeking help may be extremely vulnerable.
Before trusting an online advocate, therefore, I believe people should ask basic questions.
Who are they? What organisation are they representing? What relevant experience or qualifications do they have? Are they insured where appropriate? Do they have safeguarding procedures? If they collect money, who receives it and what is it used for? If they give information about the law, is it accurate and are the limits of their expertise made clear?
These are not hostile questions. They are reasonable questions of accountability.
Follow the money
I become particularly cautious when an account begins asking followers for money.
To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with an individual or an unincorporated group raising money, and an organisation does not have to be a registered charity or Community Interest Company simply because it accepts donations.
But transparency matters enormously.
Official Charity Commission guidance makes clear that people can raise money for personal causes, while also warning that donors must not be misled into believing that they are donating to a charity when they are not.
So ask:
Who is receiving the money?
Is this a registered organisation or an individual?
What exactly will donations pay for?
Are accounts or expenditure reports available?
Is the fundraising described accurately?
Nobody should be offended by those questions. If members of the public are being asked to part with their money, they are entitled to understand where it is going.
Advocacy should not become hatred
There is another trend that concerns me.
Supporting victims of domestic abuse should never become an excuse for attacking an entire sex.
Women can experience terrible domestic abuse. So can men.
Indeed, the Government's domestic-abuse statutory guidance specifically recognises male victims and acknowledges that men and boys can face particular barriers, including stigma, concerns about not being believed and difficulties recognising themselves as victims.
An account supposedly dedicated to helping victims should therefore be capable of recognising victims regardless of sex.
If the overwhelming content of an “advocacy” account consists of attacking men, mocking male victims, assuming allegations must always be true or treating disagreement as evidence of misogyny, I would question whether we are looking at victim advocacy at all.
The same principle applies in reverse.
A genuine support organisation for falsely accused men should not descend into hatred of women.
Advocacy should be about helping people, improving systems and pursuing truth — not finding a socially acceptable vehicle for prejudice.
The Lindsay Clancy case should make us think
The online reaction to the Lindsay Clancy case provides an especially difficult example.
Clancy killed her three young children — Cora, Dawson and Callan — in Massachusetts in 2023. She did not dispute causing their deaths at her 2026 trial; the central legal dispute concerned whether she was criminally responsible because of her mental state.
The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict and a mistrial was declared in September 2026.
Mental illness, postpartum psychosis and criminal responsibility are serious subjects deserving serious discussion.
Compassion for somebody experiencing severe mental illness is also not automatically the same thing as excusing what happened.
But something worries me when online advocacy becomes so focused on identifying with an adult defendant that the dead children almost disappear from the conversation.
Whatever someone's view of the legal arguments surrounding Lindsay Clancy, three children lost their lives.
Their names were Cora, Dawson and Callan.
They matter too.
Advocacy should be capable of holding difficult ideas simultaneously: compassion for mental illness, respect for due process, recognition of complex legal questions and compassion for the victims.
Beware the echo chamber
Social media rewards outrage.
Nuance rarely goes viral. Anger does.
That creates an obvious danger for domestic-abuse advocacy.
An account can gradually move from:
“We support victims.”
to: “We believe victims.”
to: “We automatically believe every allegation.”
and eventually to: “Anyone questioning an allegation is attacking victims.”
Those are very different propositions.
Allegations of domestic abuse must be taken seriously.
But taking an allegation seriously does not require abandoning evidence, fairness or due process.
Some allegations are substantiated. Some are not substantiated. Some cases contain competing allegations. Some relationships involve complicated behaviour by both parties. Occasionally allegations are deliberately false.
A responsible advocate should be mature enough to acknowledge all of those possibilities.
Ten questions to ask before trusting an online advocate
Before taking advice, donating money or sharing somebody's content, I would suggest checking the following:
Who is actually behind the account?
Are they transparent about their identity and organisation?
What relevant qualifications, training or experience do they have?
Do they clearly distinguish personal opinion from legal or professional advice?
If they collect money, do they explain exactly who receives it and how it is used?
Can their organisation or claimed professional status be independently verified?
Do they acknowledge both male and female victims of domestic abuse?
Do they correct themselves when they get something wrong?
Do they encourage evidence, professional advice and due process — or simply outrage?
Most importantly: are they actually helping vulnerable people, or merely building an audience?
Accountability works both ways
At the Falsely Accused Network, we challenge false allegations and support people navigating extremely difficult circumstances.
That does not mean dismissing genuine domestic abuse.
Quite the opposite.
False allegations and genuine domestic abuse are both serious problems. Recognising one does not require denying the other.
And organisations like ours should be scrutinised too.
People should ask who we are. They should ask what services we provide. They should ask what things cost. They should question information we publish and expect us to correct genuine mistakes.
That is healthy.
No organisation or advocate should demand trust simply because they claim to represent victims.
Trust should be earned through transparency, accuracy, accountability and conduct.
The badge isn't enough
Calling yourself an advocate is easy.
Being accountable is harder.
So when you encounter the next social-media account claiming to speak for domestic-abuse victims, don't simply look at the follower count, emotional videos or slogans.
Look underneath them.
Ask who is behind the account.
Ask what expertise they possess.
Ask where the money goes.
Look at how they treat people who disagree with them.
Look at whether they recognise inconvenient facts.
And above all, ask whether their work genuinely helps victims — or whether victims have simply become the branding around something else.
That distinction matters.
Michael Thompson
Founder, Falsely Accused Network
England & Wales
Contact the Falsely Accused Network
If you are facing false allegations of domestic abuse in family court proceedings in England and Wales, you can contact us:
Website: www.falselyaccusednetwork.co.uk
Email: support@falselyaccusednetwork.co.uk
Telephone: 020 4538 8788
You can book a free 15-minute quotation call through our website to find out whether and how we can help.
Comments