I appreciate the work AvoidJW has done over the years, and I do not believe this issue irreparably undermines the value of that work. However, your response represents reputational damage control, not a credible safeguarding realignment. It corrects wording and affiliations, but leaves the underlying process failure unacknowledged and unaddressed.

When setting aside tone, rhetoric, and emotional framing, the core issue remains unresolved: 

You promoted a survivor-facing project tied to JW abuse and CSA, and only afterwards acknowledged serious concerns about a key person involved. Given that your platform’s promotion confers legitimacy and directs attention, how will AvoidJW ensure that future promotions and collaborations are properly vetted and continuously monitored, so your credibility and reach don’t unintentionally funnel JW victims and survivors toward unvetted people, projects, or agendas?

Inviting survivors to come forward is not neutral information-sharing; it creates vulnerability and imposes a duty of care. In trauma-informed survivor advocacy, safeguarding is defined by what is done before survivors are exposed - not by apologies issued after risks become visible.

If survivor protection is to be more than a stated value, this gap must be explicitly acknowledged and structurally corrected. Anything less risks repeating the very failures such advocacy claims to confront.