![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I just noticed an interesting framing in all the harassment cases, and the ways in which it is affected by our personal histories with authority and intervention.
We're often shamed as children for "tattling", and told by adults to take care of interpersonal stresses rather than running for a grownup. But the desired interaction at conventions is for people to tell Ops/Security/Safety, rather than to "take matters into one's own hands".
Is this realistic? Especially when the interaction may be with someone who is on the concom or has the color of "official representative of the con", or is a BNF?
One of the major issues I'm seeing is the clash between older fen who are accustomed to the gatekeeping of few to many media (publishers, broadcasters, even APAs) vs. many who have grown up with or have become accustomed to many to many media (social media, starting with Usenet, unmoderated free bulletin boards, livejournal/dreamwidth, and now FB/tumblr/twitter).
People who have a sense of disenfranchisement and lack a sense of effective representation and inclusion are, by definition, going to go for subversive responses rather than going through official channels where they expect to be ignored. This is why we have crises of issues which were heretofore handled behing the scenes erupting in twitter-storms, etc.
The handling of social media has become a major new job for businesses, while organizations have been lagging.
I suggest that we start having someone on the concom tasked with monitoring social media, and to have the ability for people to DM the security team with an @mention and hashtag for problems, so there is a perception (and reality) that these issues are handled without necessarily needing to go talk to Ops/Secrurity/Safety in person.
…and let's stop talking about people taking things into their own hands as childish or hypersensitive or concerned with trivialities. Because the more we say this, the more it reinforces the idea that these are Not Matters Which The Grownups Will Handle, and it strengthens the urge to go public. Because that doesn't harm the minoritized. It harms the institution.
We're often shamed as children for "tattling", and told by adults to take care of interpersonal stresses rather than running for a grownup. But the desired interaction at conventions is for people to tell Ops/Security/Safety, rather than to "take matters into one's own hands".
Is this realistic? Especially when the interaction may be with someone who is on the concom or has the color of "official representative of the con", or is a BNF?
One of the major issues I'm seeing is the clash between older fen who are accustomed to the gatekeeping of few to many media (publishers, broadcasters, even APAs) vs. many who have grown up with or have become accustomed to many to many media (social media, starting with Usenet, unmoderated free bulletin boards, livejournal/dreamwidth, and now FB/tumblr/twitter).
People who have a sense of disenfranchisement and lack a sense of effective representation and inclusion are, by definition, going to go for subversive responses rather than going through official channels where they expect to be ignored. This is why we have crises of issues which were heretofore handled behing the scenes erupting in twitter-storms, etc.
The handling of social media has become a major new job for businesses, while organizations have been lagging.
I suggest that we start having someone on the concom tasked with monitoring social media, and to have the ability for people to DM the security team with an @mention and hashtag for problems, so there is a perception (and reality) that these issues are handled without necessarily needing to go talk to Ops/Secrurity/Safety in person.
…and let's stop talking about people taking things into their own hands as childish or hypersensitive or concerned with trivialities. Because the more we say this, the more it reinforces the idea that these are Not Matters Which The Grownups Will Handle, and it strengthens the urge to go public. Because that doesn't harm the minoritized. It harms the institution.
