No Boundaries? Why NOT Just Anything Goes in Online Communities...
"Because it is my name! ... I cannot have another in my life."
You know the old maxim: without your good name, you have nothing. Arthur Miller undoubtedly had this thought in mind when the wrote John Proctor's closing salvo in The Crucible. So it stands to reason that most people would be very cautious about putting it on the line. If only that were true.
My experience with online fandoms is very limited. In fact, the Downton fandom is the only one I have really engaged with; for a long time I lurked, content to be an observer, a bystander. I found fandom behavior fascinating, but when I became a blogger (who has blogged largely about Downton), I became more attuned to fandom politics.
Normally I would not devote a post to fandom behavior, but something happened very recently which clearly crossed a line and exceeded accepted bounds of etiquette and fair play. In many fandoms there are splits and factions which lead to heated exchanges, impolitic one-upmanship and grudges on both sides. The Downton fandom is no different. Yet there is an implicit understanding -- informed by shared standards of netiquette and fairness among all online communities -- that certain boundaries simply are not transgressed. Privacy and anonymity are important because, contrary to prevailing sentiment, a lot of people are careful about what they put out into the world and/or how much of themselves to reveal to perfect strangers.
When someone who is trusted by an original poster/blogger/microblogger (OP) reveals protected content to persons whom the OP deliberately excluded from seeing it, it is a problem. It is a violation of netiquette, that "honor code" to which we are all impliedly bound in online interactions. And that is precisely what happened in the Downton fandom over the weekend. Worse still: there is strong circumstantial evidence the person who did this deliberately acted as a "mole" to "spy" on persons who trusted her enough to bypass default security settings (i.e. to be privy to private, protected content). And the noble cause for which this was done? To stir the pot of idle fandom gossip.
If it seems like I am taking this a bit personally ... well, I guess I am. The person whose conduct I'm deeply disappointed in is someone I've interacted with and, though we may not see many fandom-related things eye-to-eye, I believed she was a trustworthy person. And when the incident came to light, I felt foolish for my belief. Even though it did not directly affect me, the incident rightfully upset the mutual friend(s)/acquaintance(s) whose privacy was breached -- person(s) with whom the instigator had no personal beef. I cannot think of any motivation for her actions, in fact, other than going after people because of whom they may or may not associate with in fandom.
I just wish this person had considered her actions beforehand. The fans/stans on my "side" of the fandom often get a bad rap for speaking their minds in a manner that some people do not like. But I do not think any of their followers have ever had cause to believe they were ratting them out or divulging private, protected content. The person who instigated this incident ought to think about that and the fact that, regardless of how nice her real-world friends and family may think her, online, she no longer is seen as someone who can be trusted. That is not how I would want to be perceived among people who used to respect me.
Fair or unfair, your reputation is everything.