How to Adapt the Digital Communication Norms

Published v0.1

Ce contenu n’est pas encore disponible dans votre langue.

v0.1 — Drafted May 2026

Purpose of This Document

This document accompanies R2: FREE Digital Communication Norms (Tulsa v1.2). The Tulsa Digital Communication Norms are the working document Tulsa adopted to govern its online interactions, refined through actual experience with group chats, social media engagement, and the specific challenges of holding a participatory community together across digital spaces.

This document tells you what each section is for, what failure mode it was written to prevent, what parts are load-bearing, and where you have real latitude to adapt for your chapter’s specific platforms, contexts, and threats.

Read this before drafting your chapter’s Digital Communication Norms. Read it alongside R2 itself, and after you have read R1 (Code of Conduct) and R1-Guidance.

Why This Document Exists Separately from the Code of Conduct

The Code of Conduct sets the values and behavioral standards for the community as a whole. The Digital Communication Norms translate those standards into the specific realities of digital spaces, where:

Text strips tone and creates more misunderstanding than in-person conversation
Conflict escalates faster
A single screenshot can do permanent damage
Member safety has digital dimensions (doxxing, surveillance, employer or family discovery)
The chapter’s public reputation lives largely online

A chapter can have a strong Code of Conduct and still implode online without specific digital norms. The Tulsa version was written after observing this pattern in other organizing communities and in early FREE history.

Before You Start

The Digital Communication Norms document does three things:

It governs internal communication (group chats, email, video calls, shared workspaces)
It governs public-facing communication (social media, press, identifying as a FREE member)
It establishes consequences for violations, connected to the conduct process

A weak Digital Communication Norms document reads as a list of suggestions. A strong one names specific behaviors and the protective logic behind them, so members understand both what the rules are and why they exist.

Who Should Draft Your Chapter’s Digital Communication Norms

The drafting group can overlap heavily with the Code of Conduct drafting group, but should also include:

At least one person who is actively running or managing the chapter’s primary digital platforms (the group chat admin, the social media person, the email list manager)
At least one person who has experienced digital harassment or doxxing, because they know what protections matter
At least one person who is online a lot and knows current platform dynamics (because rules written by people unfamiliar with the platforms tend to be either too strict or too naive)

The drafting takes 2-3 weeks: a reading meeting, a draft, a review meeting, and final adoption at a General Assembly.

Section-by-Section Guidance

”Purpose” (the opening framing)

What this section is for: It explains why digital communication needs its own norms beyond the Code of Conduct. Without this framing, members may not understand why a separate document exists and may treat the rules as redundant.

What is load-bearing:

The acknowledgment that digital spaces are where relationships are built, decisions are coordinated, AND where tensions surface first. This three-part framing legitimizes the entire document.

Where you have real latitude:

The exact phrasing. Your chapter’s framing may be different.
The structural division into Part 1 (Internal) and Part 2 (Public-Facing). Some chapters may combine these; some may add a Part 3 for specific platforms.

Part 1: Internal Communication Channels

”Tone and Conduct” subsection

What this section is for: It establishes basic interpersonal norms in spaces where text strips tone and conflict escalates fastest.

What is load-bearing across all chapters:

“Assume good faith first.” This is the single most important sentence in the entire document. It prevents the most common digital-space failure mode: reading hostility into a message that was not hostile, responding harshly, and triggering an escalation cycle. Every chapter needs some version of this.
“Step away rather than escalate.” This single sentence has saved more chapters from blow-ups than any other in the document. Pair it with “there is no message that cannot wait an hour.”
“Don’t pile on.” Without this, group chats become public shaming spaces.

Where you have real latitude:

The specific examples used to illustrate the principles
Whether you add additional norms specific to your chapter’s culture or platforms

What you should think hard about before changing:

The “talk to them privately or use the conflict resolution process” expectation. Without this, group chats become the venue for every interpersonal dispute, which destroys their usefulness for coordination.

”Using Channels Appropriately” subsection

What this section is for: It distinguishes between social conversation, coordination, and decision-making — three different functions that often collapse into one channel and produce chaos.

What is load-bearing:

The principle of channel-appropriate use. Without it, the chapter’s primary work channel becomes a mix of memes, personal updates, decisions buried in scrollback, and arguments about unrelated topics. The work stops.
The restriction on commercial solicitations, chain messages, and unrelated political arguments. This protects the channel from noise that drives serious members away.

Where you have real latitude:

The specific channel structure. Tulsa has “FREE Conversations” as a general channel. Your chapter’s structure will depend on your platform and size.
The @everyone / @channel notification rules. Different platforms handle this differently.

What you should think hard about before changing:

Removing the “don’t use group channels for interpersonal disputes” expectation. Chapters that allow this drift toward toxic group dynamics within months.

”Voice and Video Calls” subsection

What this section is for: It applies the same conduct standards to synchronous communication and adds specific norms around recording consent.

What is load-bearing:

The recording consent rule. “Do not record any call or meeting without explicitly informing all participants and getting agreement. This is non-negotiable.” This protects members from being recorded without consent, which is a real safety issue and in many jurisdictions a legal one.

Where you have real latitude:

The framing of how recording consent is obtained. Some chapters use explicit verbal consent at the start of each call; some use written consent at registration for events.

What you should think hard about before changing:

The non-negotiable framing of recording consent. This is one of very few items in the document where Tulsa explicitly forecloses chapter discretion. There is a reason.

”Decisions in Chat” subsection

What this section is for: It prevents the chapter from drifting into ad hoc decision-making in group chats, which produces decisions that have no real legitimacy and that nobody can find later.

What is load-bearing:

The principle that decisions follow the chapter’s adopted decision-making process, not chat consensus.
The expectation that decisions are documented somewhere durable, not in chat history.

Where you have real latitude:

The exact framing of what counts as a “binding” decision in chat. Some chapters explicitly allow certain operational decisions (e.g., “what time should we meet next week”) in chat; some do not.

What you should think hard about before changing:

Allowing more decisions to be made in chat than the chapter’s process supports. This leads to confusion about what is and is not a decision, and to disputes that are very hard to resolve.

”Privacy and Confidentiality” subsection

What this section is for: It protects members from having their identities, information, and communications shared without consent.

What is load-bearing across all chapters:

The prohibition on screenshotting and forwarding internal conversations. Without this, every group chat is one resentment away from being leaked.
The prohibition on sharing members’ personal information. This is a baseline safety expectation in any organizing context.
The “be aware of who is in the chat” guidance. Groups change over time, and members often forget who has access to which spaces.

Where you have real latitude:

The framing of the photo/video/audio consent rules. Tulsa’s version is moderately strict. Some chapters may need to be stricter (contexts of repression) or more permissive (chapters that primarily organize public-facing actions where photos are part of the work).

What you should think hard about before changing:

The screenshot/forward prohibition. This is one of the most concrete protections the document offers.

”Joining, Muting/Blocking, Leaving, and Removing” subsection

What this section is for: It establishes process around the most consequential acts of channel management: adding members, restricting access, leaving, and removing.

What is load-bearing:

The principle that adding members happens through an onboarding process, not ad hoc. Without this, group chats become unmanageable in months.
The principle that removing someone is a significant action requiring documented process, not a unilateral act mid-disagreement. Without this, channels become tools of factional warfare.
The temporary “cooling off” / muting framing. This gives administrators a tool to de-escalate without escalating to permanent action.

Where you have real latitude:

The specific roles named (“Response Team,” “channel administrator”). Your chapter will name these differently based on its structure.
The exact process for re-admitting someone after a cooling-off period.

What you should think hard about before changing:

The expectation that the cooling-off mute serves as a de-escalation tool rather than a permanent ban. Without this framing, every mute becomes a punishment, which corrupts the entire process.

Part 2: Public-Facing Communication

This is where the document does its most important external work. Public-facing communication is where chapters get into the most public trouble, and where individual member behavior most affects the chapter’s reputation and safety.

”Speaking on Behalf of FREE” subsection

What this section is for: It distinguishes between personal opinion and organizational position, and protects both the chapter (from being misrepresented) and the member (from being silenced).

What is load-bearing:

The “do not speak as FREE without authorization” expectation. Without this, anyone can post anything in the chapter’s name.
The “personal accounts are personal, with limits” framing. This preserves members’ political voice while preventing them from claiming organizational backing for personal positions.
The “when in doubt, speak for yourself” guidance. Concrete and actionable.

Where you have real latitude:

The exact process for authorizing official statements. Tulsa’s version is implicit (designated people post from official accounts). Your chapter may want this more explicit.
The framing of how members identify as FREE members in their personal accounts. Some chapters may want this stricter, some more permissive.

What you should think hard about before changing:

Removing the distinction between personal and organizational voice. Without it, the chapter inherits every controversial position any member takes, and members lose the ability to speak independently.

”Internal Disagreements and Public Airing” subsection

What this section is for: It addresses the most common digital harm chapters face: an internal disagreement that gets aired publicly, damages trust, and makes resolution impossible.

What is load-bearing across all chapters:

The expectation to raise disagreements internally first.
The prohibition on vaguebooking and subtweeting about internal conflicts. This is critical and often missed: a post that avoids naming FREE while clearly referring to FREE is still public airing.
The explicit framing that public disclosure of internal conflicts is a violation, with the narrow exception for legal or safety necessity when internal processes have been exhausted.

Where you have real latitude:

The exception language. Tulsa’s version says “extreme cases of legal or safety necessity where all internal governance has been formally exhausted.” This is narrow on purpose. Your chapter may want different framing.

What you should think hard about before changing:

The vaguebook/subtweet specificity. Removing this gives bad actors a loophole.
Broadening the exception language. The narrower the exception, the more protective the rule. Loose exceptions destroy the protection.

”Engaging Online” subsection

What this section is for: It governs how chapter members behave in public online spaces, including responses to harassment and bad-faith engagement.

What is load-bearing:

The “don’t feed bad-faith engagement” guidance. Without this, every troll gets a long argument that legitimizes them and exhausts members.
The expectation to “verify before you share.” This protects the chapter from being the source of misinformation.

Where you have real latitude:

The framing of how disengagement happens. Some chapters may want specific blocking/muting protocols; some may want a “report to admin” path.
The humor/sarcasm guidance. Cultural context matters here.

What you should think hard about before changing:

The expectation to verify before sharing. Chapters that drop this become unreliable sources, which damages their long-term credibility.

”Photos, Video, and Stories” subsection

What this section is for: It protects member safety in chapters where being identified as a member can have real consequences.

What is load-bearing across all chapters:

The expectation to get consent before posting images of members or participants.
The absolute prohibition on sharing images or recordings from accountability or conflict resolution processes.

Where you have real latitude:

The framing of how consent is obtained. Some chapters use opt-in lists; some use opt-out announcements at events; some use both.
Whether and how livestreaming is permitted.

What you should think hard about before changing:

The accountability process privacy prohibition. This is one of the most important sentences in the entire document. Members must be able to participate in conflict resolution knowing their participation will not be public.

”Protecting Community Safety” subsection

What this section is for: It establishes the specific information that must never be shared publicly, with the underlying principle that “employers, opponents, law enforcement, and journalists all monitor public social media.”

What is load-bearing:

The list of categories that must not be shared publicly: member home/work locations, surprise-dependent action details, real names of pseudonymous members, internal strategy/legal/financial details, ongoing conflict resolution information.

Where you have real latitude:

The exact items on the list. Your chapter may need to add categories specific to your context (e.g., immigration status, religious affiliation, family situation).

What you should think hard about before changing:

The “real names of members who use pseudonyms” item. Some members’ safety depends on this being absolute.
The “ongoing conflict resolution processes” item. See the photos/video section.

”When These Norms Are Violated”

What this section is for: It establishes the consequence structure and connects it to the Conflict & Harm Resolution Process.

What is load-bearing:

The three-tier structure: minor issues get direct peer or point person conversation; deliberate/repeated/serious issues go to the Response Team; severe issues warrant immediate temporary removal pending assessment.
The framing of temporary removal as protective, not punitive.

Where you have real latitude:

The exact role names (“Response Team,” “Point Person”). Your chapter will have its own structure.
The 24-hour reporting expectation for administrator actions. Adjust as needed.

What you should think hard about before changing:

The protective framing of temporary removal. Without it, every removal becomes a punishment, which makes administrators reluctant to use the tool and chapters less safe.

Common Adaptation Patterns

Pattern 1: High-Surveillance Contexts

Chapters operating in contexts with active state surveillance, employer monitoring, or political repression often add explicit operational security language. This can include:

Stricter recording prohibitions
Specific platform requirements (Signal or Matrix instead of Discord)
Explicit guidance on police interactions related to chapter business
More aggressive doxxing prevention language

If your chapter members face real risks for political organizing, these additions are not optional.

Pattern 2: Diaspora and Cross-Border Chapters

Chapters with members in multiple countries face complications: members may face different legal regimes for political organizing, different surveillance contexts, different employer cultures. The document may need to acknowledge that members carry different risks and that the chapter accommodates these differences.

Pattern 3: Highly Online Chapters

Chapters that operate primarily online (geographically dispersed members, early-formation chapters, working group structures) need more digital norms than a chapter that meets primarily in person. Consider:

Stricter expectations on response time and asynchronous communication
Explicit norms about which platforms host which work
Stronger expectations on documentation, since less is captured organically

Pattern 4: Platform-Specific Adjustments

The Tulsa version is platform-agnostic. Your chapter will likely need to adjust based on what platforms you actually use. Discord servers operate differently from Signal groups, which operate differently from email lists. The norms should reflect the actual platforms in use.

Process for Adopting Your Chapter’s Digital Communication Norms

Drafting group formed, often overlapping with Code of Conduct drafting group
Drafting group reads R2, R2-Guidance, and the chapter’s adopted Code of Conduct together
Draft produced, with attention to the platforms the chapter actually uses
Draft circulated to all chapter members at least one week before adoption
General Assembly discussion and ratification using the chapter’s decision-making method
Channel administrators identified for each digital space the chapter operates
Document stored in the chapter’s shared repository
Review scheduled for the chapter’s review cycle

This typically takes 3-6 weeks. Doing it well takes time. Doing it badly costs more time later.

Translation Considerations

The Digital Communication Norms are more platform- and culture-specific than the Code of Conduct, which makes translation more delicate. Specific platform conventions (what @everyone means, how block/mute works on a given platform) may not translate directly. The Documentation Circle can help, and native-speaker review by someone familiar with the platforms in question is essential.

If your chapter operates in a language other than English and uses platforms that have different conventions in that language’s cultural context, you may find that a clean translation is impossible and a native-language original is more useful.

Common Mistakes in Adaptation

These have all happened in early chapter Norms drafting:

Making the document too long. Some chapters have produced 20-page documents covering every possible scenario. The result: nobody reads it, and the few people who do cannot remember the specifics. Aim for documents members can actually internalize.
Skipping the public-facing section. Some chapters focus only on internal norms because they assume public-facing communication will be rare. Then a controversy hits, members post inconsistent things publicly, and the chapter has no framework to handle it.
Removing the recording consent rule. Some chapters have softened this because they wanted to record meetings for transparency. This can be done safely, but only with explicit and documented consent processes. Without those, the chapter is exposed to legal and safety risk.
Treating the Norms as separate from the Code of Conduct. The two documents are designed to work together. Violations of the Norms are violations of the Code. If the chapter treats them as separate systems, it ends up with conflicting processes.
Adopting without identifying channel administrators. A document that says “channel administrators can mute or restrict” is useless if no one knows who the channel administrators are. Always name people or roles at adoption.
Underestimating the risk of public airing. Chapters that take the “internal disagreements internal” rule lightly inevitably learn its value the hard way, usually around month four or five.

A Final Note

The Digital Communication Norms is the document chapters most often skip or write hastily, because it feels like “obvious internet stuff.” It is not obvious. The behaviors this document is preventing have destroyed organizing communities. The behaviors this document is enabling — assuming good faith, stepping away, raising things internally first — are the ones that allow communities to hold together under pressure.

The Tulsa version was written after watching multiple online communities fail in specific, identifiable ways. The specificity of the rules reflects the specificity of the failures. Adopt a version your chapter stands behind, knowing it will be tested.

A Note on This Document

This is v0.1 of R2-Guidance, drafted in May 2026. It will be updated as more chapters complete their Digital Communication Norms adoption and surface patterns and pitfalls.

This is a living document. It will be reviewed and updated as the network grows.

The FREE Chapter Starter Kit is published by FREE (Forum for Real Economic Emancipation). freefreeforum.org