A hobby guardrail illustration

[+ SirBillybob]

Fun scene set up … You are:

@triggerablekarenwithhaironfireoficial on Instagram as well as a gay travel board member and poster of experiences. You treat a provider to a transactional-inclusive trip; he is @naivelytrustingacompanhantegayforpay on Instagram. 

Your chatroom-posted trip diary includes gossip about provider’s hard life and occupational ambivalence, as well as holiday photos, none intended to harm or reveal. However, provider also innocently IG-posts same trip photos, unaware of the crossover, subsequently observed by other chatroom contributors following him, in the same CSW pool context, including actual physical body imagery common to your board posts as punter, that unambiguously delineates him as your (Karen’s) BF of the week. His punter’s follower/ following status also pops right up. Uh oh. 

One of those other chatroom members posts a brief caution alert for the member constituency at large regarding the risks of outing within today’s multi-media context … how easy it can be to unintentionally deposit content that is triangulated in such a way as to potentially compromise either side of the transaction and break anonymity. That member appends redacted content for illustrative emphasis: “ @t…………..l and @n………..y “, no images or ID-revealing ‘watermarks’, also having thought it through and deciding to post this messaging method over DM utilization options, in order for the collective to be privy to the lesson and it’s across-board application. No evidence that reverse image search had factored into the scenario but you perhaps cannot be certain about that and jump to conclusions.

———

As Karen, you:

a) Dash overreactively screaming to management with accusations of stalking & doxxing, imputing to your hobby peer the worst of intentions in spite of risk commonality, flea the scene licking false wounds, making it your life mission to smear your board peer, whining about losing the prerogative and comfort of ever posting hobby material again?

b) Accept the positively intentioned life lesson, no thanks required, trust or inquire about any further worrisome implications if any residual concerns, not unnecessarily fuelling antipathy towards your chatroom peer when none existed in the first place, and taking into consideration peer’s capacity to effectively take management admin to task over misplaced chastisement? 

[This is not at all an actual real life scenario specific to our board.]

Edited Wednesday at 01:26 PM by SirBillybob

[Nightowl]

c) Ignore it.  The damage has been done.

[+ SirBillybob]

6 hours ago, Nightowl said:

c) Ignore it.  The damage has been done.

OK, a surely viable option. Essentially similar to (b)? Have I got that right? How is (c) unique? You are succinct yet it may spur additional unpacking. 

What damage, though? And to whom of three main scene players? Or two?

Let’s assume provider not at all in the loop about the connectivity, and no harmful cascade effect that way. The illustrative lesson for all punters is what stands … decouple personal content about a commercial sex worker (CSW) from identifying images he obviously would prefer not be plunked in to the narrative but that he himself posted in social media in a natural celebratory way due to a travel opportunity. He also does NOT advertise in any online public or paywall domain. 

—- 

Let’s also talk about actionable options for the guardrail-intentional member. Given (a) mapped out or (b) / (c) mapped out. 

As Karen, you have no event receipts specific to the guardrail action. Your board peer may have event receipts, none evidently in play. As Karen, your peer-trashing manoeuvres, given (a) having mapped out hypothetically, leave footprints. In contrast (b) / (c) not categorically ruled out but would suggest punctuation in dynamics.

Edited Wednesday at 08:17 PM by SirBillybob

[Nightowl]

12 hours ago, SirBillybob said:

OK, a surely viable option. Essentially similar to (b)? Have I got that right? How is (c) unique? You are succinct yet it may spur additional unpacking. 

What damage, though? And to whom of three main scene players? Or two?

Let’s assume provider not at all in the loop about the connectivity, and no harmful cascade effect that way. The illustrative lesson for all punters is what stands … decouple personal content about a commercial sex worker (CSW) from identifying images he obviously would prefer not be plunked in to the narrative but that he himself posted in social media in a natural celebratory way due to a travel opportunity. He also does NOT advertise in any online public or paywall domain. 

—- 

Let’s also talk about actionable options for the guardrail-intentional member. Given (a) mapped out or (b) / (c) mapped out. 

As Karen, you have no event receipts specific to the guardrail action. Your board peer may have event receipts, none evidently in play. As Karen, your peer-trashing manoeuvres, given (a) having mapped out hypothetically, leave footprints. In contrast (b) / (c) not categorically ruled out but would suggest punctuation in dynamics.

The “damage” if you want to call it that, is either that the situation identifies Karen as someone who hires sex workers and/or identifies the provider as a sex worker.  The only difference between c) and b) is that c) doesn’t imply anything about accepting life lessons, attitudes toward the chatroom peer or anything else.  Ignoring it might just be a way to move on and remove the spotlight from any further scrutiny of the situation..

As for the continuation of your scenario—and I mean no offense—my brain hurts just reading it.

[+ SirBillybob]

6 hours ago, Nightowl said:

The “damage” if you want to call it that, is either that the situation identifies Karen as someone who hires sex workers and/or identifies the provider as a sex worker.  The only difference between c) and b) is that c) doesn’t imply anything about accepting life lessons, attitudes toward the chatroom peer or anything else.  Ignoring it might just be a way to move on and remove the spotlight from any further scrutiny of the situation..

As for the continuation of your scenario—and I mean no offense—my brain hurts just reading it.

Thanks.

No, Karen is a regular hirer and describer of same, but is not outed in terms of ID. Karen outs the provider by assuming nobody else recognizes him in the photos Karen posts, yet he is drawn from a non-online provider pool that several fellow punters share. It is assumed the provider wouid object to the unflattering gossip about him, and he posts the same trip photos not aware of the gossip posted about him in a public domain. The fellow punter posts a caution for everybody in terms of the risks of outing and it getting back to the provider; it’s a small world, etc messaging. 

I believe you endorse (b) and or the similar (c). Everybody is simply reminded  to be discreet and apply guardrails without needing to be deprived of the enjoyment of posting hire stories.

(a) is a scenario where Karen makes it her mission to assert having been outed, to warn board members that the caution suggested by the board peer was actually outing Karen and making Karen anxious about future hire diaries, and to label the board peer as somebody predisposed to outing anybody, yet Karen in possession of no evidence (“receipts”) of same. The assumption about the peer evolves as fact among elements of the chatroom board membership.

Anybody for (a)? Other thoughts and comments? 

Edited yesterday at 08:52 AM by SirBillybob

[+ PhileasFogg]

Everything happens for a reason 

People are going to think what people are going to think 

Accept the outcome and walk in new light. 

[+ SirBillybob]

1 hour ago, PhileasFogg said:

Everything happens for a reason 

People are going to think what people are going to think 

Accept the outcome and walk in new light. 

This, and …

Online trolls mistake noise for power, bruising reputation in the moment, but failing to touch its substance. Reputation is a fragile proxy for what is real about a person, easily distorted, often overrated. What endures isn’t what sad silly strangers crap out of their pie holes about you, but what you consistently do and stand for. Trolls trade in rumour to distract attention about their deficiencies. Durable worth compounds quietly; board rep rankings underscore this idea. 

—- 
Best not disabuse @n…………..y of the naïve distorted belief that he was actually treated well overall by gluttonously attention-grabbing hair-on-fire punter Karen in this hypothetical hobby risk management scenario? Only serve hot meals? 

Edited yesterday at 12:37 PM by SirBillybob

[+ PhileasFogg]

This is not too far from scenarios I expose myself to in social media.     Exploration with men is new to me over the last couple of years.   I've evolved to the position of I'm not going to modify my life, I'm not going to advertise my personal business, I'm not going to hide my personal business, nor am I going to lie.   If anyone has the courage to ask me, they'll hear the truth.   If they don't, they're gonna think what they're gonna think.   If I were still married, I'd likely feel differently.   

My kids have been told, they're supportive, and that's all that matters to me.

I've come out directly to a couple of friends and one, in turn, came out to ME....uh huh, and then we made a week trip to consummate the new knowledge.