Expand ↗
Page list (52)

Concept Map — A Tour of Anti-Violence Tech

This is the prose tour of the vault: the ideas and how they interlock. For the index of every note, see index.

The problem shapes the tools

Anti-violence technology only makes sense against the violence it answers. Gender-Based Violence is the umbrella; within it sit Domestic Violence and Intimate Partner Violence, whose defining dynamic is often Coercive Control — a pattern of domination that runs through finances, isolation, and surveillance, not just physical assault. Stalking extends the same control beyond the relationship. Naming these accurately matters, because a tool designed for stranger danger (a Panic Button for a dark parking lot) addresses a very different threat model from one designed for a survivor living with their abuser.

Three families of tools

Most products cluster into a few patterns:

Increasingly, Safety Wearables and AI Distress Detection add hardware triggers and automatic detection on top of these patterns.

The double edge

The same capabilities that protect can be turned into weapons. Location Sharing inverts into Location Tracking Abuse; consumer monitoring apps become Stalkerware; the broader pattern is Tech-Enabled Abuse. This is why Privacy and Safety is not a feature checkbox but the central design tension: a safety app that leaks data, or that an abuser can see on a shared device, can increase danger.

Designing for survivors

The strongest tools are built with Trauma-Informed Design and Survivor-Centered Design: discreet apps that disguise themselves on a monitored phone, defaults that fail safe, and Risk Assessment grounded in what actually predicts escalation. The measure of an anti-violence tool is not its feature list but whether it reduces real harm for the people most at risk — a claim that should be checked against Research, such as Tech Abuse and Coercive Control.

Last changed by zetl · stable 5d · history

Backlinks