Extent of confidentially to be expected in pms
Doublethink
Admin, 8th Day Host
in The Styx
Thread to discuss the boundaries of confidentiality of pms between shipmates, or between shipmates and crew.
Comments
Who's to say what is "socially unpleasant" behaviour? You put a lot of faith in societal norms and public opinion. In my book, social shaming and marginalisation and discrimination are all different facets of the same underlying societal attitudes. I think these behaviours (ie social shaming and marginalisation and discrimination) should be condemned, not condoned.
Where there is an obligation not to disclose to third parties that obligation applies to other private messages, and to hosts and admins, as well to the public boards.
A secret passed on to only one other person is no longer a secret. If I pass on personal details to another Shipmate by pm, it's as much a violation of my confidence to pass it on to the hosts as it is to make it public on the boards.
Reasons for sending a private message may include:
I'm sending personal details that I don't wish to be passed on;
I'm venting about or commiserating about a third party, and I don't want to start or restart an argument with the third party;
I don't want to derail a thread or I think what I'm saying is only of interest to the recipient;
I'm up to no good, being manipulative, or abusive.
With respect to the first two, one certainly shouldn't make them public, but one equally shouldn't pass them on to Hosts or Admins (at least not without an overriding obligation to do so).
The third imposes no particular obligation either way.
The fourth certainly imposes no obligation of any kind upon me. The Ship does not have a Block function for private messages.
Supposing someone with whom I don't have prior friendly relations sends me an unsolicited private message. If I do not want to carry on an exchange of private messages with that person, perhaps because I am worried it will turn abusive or heated or manipulative, or because I don't think I have the time or energy to give the exchange the attention it deserves, and yet I think their message requires a reply, it seems to me more appropriate to reply in public than to circuitously enlist a host or admin to make the reply on my behalf.
If the private message wasn't appropriate as a private message in the first place then a public reply is fine. My impression is that people who send private messages inappropriately do not normally take hints; and any sort of private reply is liable to be taken as encouragement.
Being probably somewhat neuro divergent myself I appreciate that some people may want rules to be categorical, absolute, and simple. "Private messages may not be made public" is categorical. But as soon as one admits any exception - eg you may report abusive private messages to a Host - one is no longer treating them as categorical.
I'm the UK abusive messages are criminal offences under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and Online Safety Act 2023.
Yes, I can see that this is something you feel strongly about. But I don't see any real argument from you about why your view should be normative for anyone else given, as I say again, it represents a minority view over hundreds of years.
There is a legitimate question about whether my example of a poison-pen letter compares to interactions online.
But that seems to me to have nothing to do with the quasi-legal framing you are putting on this argument.
It seems that your justification leans on it being less complicated or time-consuming to start a Styx thread than to PM a Host or Admin. Given the track-record with Styx threads on these forums, I can't help thinking that PM'ing a Host or Admin would often be the simpler option.
How is that an exception? You assert that privately reporting abusive private messages to a Host somehow contravenes an injunction about not making them public. In my book, that's a fairly simple conflation of the terms "private" and "public".
That societies have created social outcasts for thousands of years doesn't seem much of an argument, either.
Well, it's your example.
It isn't uncommon for the recipient of a poison-pen letter to take legal advice on how to respond. I've yet to find any that recommend making the contents of the letter public as a first resort. And as Boogie pointed out, sending abusive messages can constitute a criminal offence.
Good. Private messages and no moderation sound like a recipe for abusive behaviour.
Seconded. Speaking as an ND guy who struggles with the role of "rules" in life, this may be helpful:
At my job, I've come to an understanding of sorts. There are three kinds of rules:
1) Do not break this. Ever.
2) If you break this, confess, clean up your mess, don't make a habit of it.
3) Feel free to ignore this rule unless an authority figure is watching you.
Category 1 rules are sacrosanct and you should be asking yourself some deep questions if you find yourself breaking them. For instance, "don't toss around racial slurs," "don't use sock puppet accounts," "don't spam the ship."
Category 2 rules are rules that you can break from time to time based on need, or from particular failings. In either case, if you run afoul, check in with an appropriate authority and learn to trust them to do their job. Hosts and Admins exist for a reason! We cannot afford to have every single shipmate trying to adjudicate every single political problem on the ship! That way lies madness!
Category 3 rules are social performances that aren't really a problem. I'm not really sure what those would be here, the ship doesn't really have the resources to fuss over category 3 rules.
I think the "PM's are private" is a category 2 or 3 rule. That means it is a good rule for most circumstances, but may be broken with care in specific situations and adjudicated by appropriate authorities.
Honestly, that seems appropriate. I've sometimes wondered about the boundaries issues of PMing people when you're trying to communicate with someone and you can't tell from "lack of response" if that means you're giving them unwanted attention or if they're just busy. I realize this is why a lot of folks over on bsky put "No DMs!" on their profile to clarify the situation, and I've started leaning into that. DMs are just awkward things on some fora.
Outing someone's rude behavior seems pretty sound to me once it's clear that they're being willfully disrespectful. Unwanted pebbling is one thing, but once the recipient has clearly indicated their discomfort, that's a line that deserves some respect. It's a shame some people have poor ears.
As I indicated earlier, I am happy to discuss why this is different to the situation we are thinking about here, however it seems like nonsense to me to suggest that one needs to keep secret things that bad actors have said and done in private. Nobody really thinks that.
So then the question is whether the action warranted the public exposure, no? What am I missing?
What I’m having trouble with in this conversation and the conversation that gave rise to it is the idea that saying something in a private message somehow imposes an automatic obligation of confidentiality. (Except, apparently, when it doesn’t because the PM is abusive or otherwise inappropriate.)
From my perspective, if I send someone a private message, I have no reason to expect confidentiality unless either the person agrees to keep the communication confidential or our pre-existing relationship is such that agreement that our communications are confidential can be reasonably assumed without being stated. Otherwise, all I can reasonably do is hope for confidentiality.
I alluded earlier to the saying that if you disclose a secret to just one person you've disclosed it to everybody. The point is that the public just is a collection of individuals. The only important difference in most circumstances is that if they're a public then everyone knows that what is public is common knowledge.
So if I understand your position correctly, if Anne finds her sister Bobby's private diary if she reads it and if she shares it with her friends one by one she is still respecting Bobby's privacy; and she is only failing to respect Bobby's privacy it if she puts it on YouTube.
I submit that this is failing to grasp the point and importance of privacy. This is adhering to a literalistic interpretation of the rule and failing to understand what is important about the rule in the first place.
I think starting a thread in the Styx would have been the simpler option if you hadn't kicked off a fuss about it.
How is that an exception? You assert that privately reporting abusive private messages to a Host somehow contravenes an injunction about not making them public. In my book, that's a fairly simple conflation of the terms "private" and "public".[/quote]
Dictionary definitions of private included: 1) personal; 2) secret, confidential; 3) not public.
If I understand your position, you're claiming that sense 1) is the same as sense 2, but the obligation derived from sense 2) is fully captured by sense 3).
it seems to me that this is a fallacy of ambiguity.
1. In general don’t reveal without agreement.
2. In particular, if you feel you’re being manipulated by confidentiality, disclose to any relevant authority with details as necessary. You don’t have to tell everything.
3. And if there is no relevant authority, just don’t play ball. And don’t give the potential manipulator any more ammunition. No matter how tempting it may be to respond.
But I also think there's good reason to contemplate it from this perspective - many of the rules of these forums have been established with legal considerations in mind - and that includes quite a lot of the stuff around privacy and libel and copyright, all of which are potentially relevant, albeit at the severe end of infringement. The potential for an individual being sued over a private message that they have made public is actual. And, for better or worse, this site has always operated on the side of caution.
"Obligation" isn't a word I've used (let alone "automatic"). But in the case of private communication, any obligation on the part of the recipient depends in part on the reasonable expectations of the sender.
As has already been noted, the word "reasonable" is significant here. If the expectations of the sender are unreasonable, this has a consequent effect on the nature and degree of any obligation on the part of the recipient. I'm not sure why this idea is causing so many problems.
"Confidentiality" was also not a word I introduced into the discussion (and I think the title of this thread is misleading in regard to what is being discussed). But I would say there are a wide range of circumstances in which private communication, outside the context of a pre-existing relationship, comes with more of a reasonable expectation of confidentiality than a hope.
This is where I part ways; my assumption would be that if they are doing it to me, then they are probably doing it to others who feel less able to push back, and therefore disclosure is a matter of community safety.
Good rules @Barnabas62
Did you notice the categorization scheme I established? Category 2 rules are often broken in the service of greater rules, and category 3 rules are often broken without concern because...it doesn't matter to anyone except the rules-fixated.
I think the rule you mention - if it is one - is a category 2 rule, if not a 3. And that means it can be broken under certain circumstances. I think in this instance the reasons are understandable. So it's not a big deal to me. If it is to you, can you make a case for why?
I'm into politics. "Rules for the sake of rules" are bad policy. Laws need spirit as well as letter.
I think that's an excellent set of guidelines, may file it away for future use.
[ETA: Props to @chrisstiles with the amendment, that's important. If there's a pattern of someone using PM's to manipulate people, that needs to be addressed. A lot of abuse can happen in private spaces. As I've learned on social media, DM's can be dangerous even if you're not trying to be a jerk.]
Very fair point. The risk to others still exists in a situation where there is no obvious relevant authority. I’m not sure who I’d disclose to. But if the circumstances were right I might be willing to share my experience with a third party who might know the manipulator, as a warning.
I wouldn’t continue conversations with the manipulator however.
Ah - what you wrote was: There are many secrets that are known to more that one individual, which are nonetheless still considered to be secrets. In that regard, these two sayings are not truisms, they are adages about trust. Treating either of them as being true in themselves rather misconstrues the nature and purpose of an adage.
I find most analogies tenuous at the best of times, and this one captures very little of the circumstances that provide the context for this discussion. Returning to this context, it appears that your argument is that it is just as disrespectful of someone's privacy to share information about their private message with a Host or Admin as it is to start a thread about it in Styx. And so I continue to be confused about whether you're saying that there is or isn't any distinction between disclosing a private message to a third party, and making it public.
I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure which rule you're talking about at this point.
If you start a thread in Styx, you are inviting comment. If you don't want to invite comment, don't start a thread in Styx. On the Ship of Fools, this is really basic, forums 101 stuff.
Thanks. I was expecting an appeal to a fallacy of something-or-other at some point. Beyond that, I'm afraid I can't work out how the above relates to what I think.
I think, on general principles, we should not expect people to keep abusive pms private. The would recommend as a first resort reporting them to a crew member.
We generally try to host publicly, for reasons of transparency so there are limits the confidentially we can promise shipmates contacting crew *in their official capacity*. There is also a distinction of confidential to the crew vs total confidentially or public on site.
More particularly, I don't accept any of your categories, which means it's difficult to respond to your question (below) using your categories. For me, it's not about rules - the concept of "breaking a rule" to which I referred comes from this: Given that you explicitly seconded this, I was posing the question in the same terms.
Thanks. As for me, I would say that the expectation of privacy is not a categorical rule.
In the light of two discussions (so far), the meaning of "private" in this context seems ambiguous. Maybe "we do not expect you to keep abusive PMs to yourself" would be clearer.
My understanding is that victim confidentiality is fundamental to the effective reporting and handling of abuse. I find the suggestion that this might be overridden by the desire for transparency quite troubling.
I'm afraid I can't work out what this means.
As things stand, you are going to be held to two people's understanding of privacy.
At a number of points since we started using this software, I have wondered if it would be rather simpler to completely disable the PM system for everyone.
Confidential to crew, would been a pm about hosting issues might be shared on the Hosts forum in order to consider what constitutes an appropriate course of action - and that is certainly something that will happen currently. I.e. “x pmd me saying they think y post is a personal attack - what do you guys think, should this be hosted ?”
Public would mean posting a pm on the public facing site.
I think the distinction between referencing or quoting is meaningful.
A pm might include a load of other material, “I am sorry I can’t engage with Styx at the moment because I feel threatened by poster z - but I feel that post h is a personal attack on poster j”. Might be referenced as “we have been pm’d and asked to review post h, after discussion on the Host’s forum we think [whatever we think].
Re transparency we can’t for example, ban a person with no reference at all as to why. Even if it is just - this person has been sending abusive pms.
Otherwise, how would there be proof of them sending abusive PMs? The accuser could be being malicious.
Maybe ask for screenshots? Have I answered my own question?
OK. (You previously framed it as being for reasons of transparency, which is rather different.)
In the above, you talk about what the Crew would do about a Shipmate raising a complaint by PM about another user's post. I thought the issue was about what Shipmates should do if they are sent an undesirable PM, including how much of an undesirable PM could or should be quoted (cf referenced) when a Shipmate either notifies the Crew, or starts a thread in Styx.
What the policy is for the Crew, about how much information to reveal when posting about a complaint they've received, either on the Hosts board or Styx, is another matter, albeit related.
You can if you want. The policy about transparency is self-imposed, so it's up to you how you enforce it.
The ability of any of the users of this software to access anyone else's Private Messages has been disabled.
In terms of proof, there isn't much difference between a screenshot and just copying and pasting the text into a new PM. Digital evidence isn't difficult to fabricate.
I think a simpler explanation is that you don't understand my position, but instead of saying so, you'd rather say that my position is based on fallacious or incorrect reasoning.
I can just say, if I am sending a pm to an individual, I assume it is going to stay personal, unless I release it. The lawyers here may have a different opinion, but it is my understanding that technically in US law anything I write--even a short personal message--is automatically protected the moment I create it. However, since most PMs are short and conversational not a creative work in a copyright sense, the courts routinely do not get involved since they are short messages and the copyright violation is too insubstantial.
But there is an ethical issue. To me, a PM creates a social expectation of privacy. If my PM is released without my permission, I would consider it rude and a breach of trust.
Now, if my message were reposted as a way of shaming me, or misrepresenting me it could cross over into legal territory, but it would depend on the content of my message and on the intent of the reporter.
What I am saying is there can be a very fine line between what is allowed and what can get one into jeopardy.
Therefore, I am arguing for keeping PMs private.
Now if a PM is abusive or threatening, then that is an issue for the crew to handle.
Privacy would be yet another category, referring to how secure the communication is from anyone other than intended recipients (such as a hacker) reading the communication.
From a legal lens perspective, it seems to me that what is being talked about in this thread, regardless of what term is used, is confidentiality. The question seems to be whether anything imposes a duty of confidentiality on the recipient of a PM. The rules of the forum could, but I don’t understand them to currently do that. Absent something in the rules, I come back to what I’ve said before—Absent forum guidelines imposing confidentiality, possibly with exceptions, and that make breach of confidentiality of 10 Cs violation, I think confidentiality of a PM can only reasonably be assumed when there is actual agreement on that point between the sender and the recipient, or when the prior relationship and history between the sender and the recipient is such that a continued understanding of confidentiality can reasonably be assumed.
Also, if there's a "victim" in this case, unless there's evidence of suppression, one may assume that the victim has the right to speak for themself. I'm not sure we should be in the business of assigning advocates here in the case of people who feel suppressed by "the system" of hosts and admins. That feels messy and cumbersome to what is merely an online discussion board, not an actual nation state.
And in general, disclosing the contents of a PM is better done to a host or admin to avoid the possibility of public embarrassment, assuming hosts and admins are comfortable assuming that responsibility. Really, I don't know how often this problem comes up and I am personally quite aware that they do a lot of work as it is.
This only makes sense in certain contexts. If I've interacted with someone on the public boards and I like that person, that's a relationship I want to preserve, so I keep what they tell me private. If I actively dislike someone, I might not care about whether they trust me or not. I might keep a PM from such a person private out of common decency, but if I have a bad relationship with a shipmate or no relationship at all, it's a totally different situation from getting a PM from someone I know and like.
Years ago someone who was then active on the boards but with whom I had never interacted with in a public discussion sent me a message saying he liked a particular kind of cheese and asking if I liked cheese. It was weird. I couldn't tell if it was just an awkward attempt to start a conversation or a bizarre come on or something meant for another person. I responded with something like "I don't know what you're talking about" and that was the end of it.
I would have felt completely free to publish the contents of this message if I'd felt like it was in fact a come on or if it had been more unsettling. I didn't owe this guy confidentiality or privacy. If someone sends something abusive, sure, telling the admins should be an option, but why should an abuser get privacy? Why should some rando who sends something unsettling get privacy? Sending a PM does not by itself create a situation where I owe someone anything. It depends on relationship and context.