Earlier in the week, I was stopped in my tracks by this post on /r/AskUK:
I am someone who doesn’t like being perceived at the best of times, so the idea of a stranger filming me and posting the video to social media is so, so stressful.
The general consensus in the comments is that the OP has no legal legs to stand on—he works in a public place, and unless management wants to ban the customer from the store, he just has to live with it.
I obviously went digging and found the video (I won’t link it because that would defeat the point, but you can easily find it).
The TikTok creator has hundreds of thousands of views, with one video - I suspect the one OP is referring to - racking up 1.7 million views. There is even an article in The Guardian about this particular ‘creator’ (in the loosest sense of the word), which seems to neglect to mention any privacy issues and focuses on the fun nature of the videos.
I have a few questions here: does the creator need to post the face of the shop worker in the video for it to have the same effect? What rights do we have, as members of the public - especially at work - to our privacy?
Personally, I don’t think the faces need to be in the videos. Some may argue they do, as the shop workers are positioned as “bosses” and “opponents” in a gameplay-style, but if the subjects don’t consent to being recorded, and posted online to millions of people, how is this fair?
It’s not.
Being the ✨Main Character✨
This whole situation screams of Main Character Syndrome - a phrase referring to people who feel that they are primary in their actions, and everyone else is secondary, essentially a real-life Truman Show.
On Main Character Syndrome, Psychologist Susan Albers, PsyD, said:
‘Main character energy’ is perhaps the more appropriate term for this set of behaviors, and with this kind of energy, you often present to the world as if a camera is on you at all times
“Having that perspective — that you are the center of the story — naturally changes the way you present yourself to others and how you act in a public setting.
“You view yourself through a storytelling lens, like you’re on a movie or a TV show, and the spotlight is always on you,”
This is exactly what is happening over on TikTok - as creators are viewing their lives through the lens of content, how it will perform, and what this means for them - the dopamine rush of going viral will ultimately overwhelm any empathy for anyone caught up in your net.
Behaviours like this aren’t unique to those making content, either. People have long struggled with understanding why they may or may not have the right to someone else’s image, time, or kindness.
Pop icon Chappell Roan recently spoke up on social media about her right to refuse fan photos and her dislike of being harassed in the street. Roan said:
“If you saw a random woman on the street, would you yell at her from your car window? Would you harass her in public? Would you go up to a random lady and say, ‘Can I get a photo with you?’ and she’s like, ‘No, what the f*ck?’ and then you get mad at this random lady? Would you be offended if she says no to your time because she has her own time?”
I wholeheartedly agree that we, as fans, have absolutely no right to her, just because we enjoy her music. In the context of the shop worker above, clearly people are photographing and videoing random strangers for their own benefit - and they show absolutely zero regard for the impact this might have.
Fear of being perceived
Blindboy Boatclub, an Irish writer and podcaster whom I have referenced several times here now, has been a vocal advocate of privacy. Blindboy, who is autistic, wears a bag on his head as a literal mask, so he can draw a solid line between his work persona and personal life. He recently shared a story about being recognised at a wedding (which he was attending as a civilian), and how the news of his presence spread through the party, with many people asking for photos or videos of him without his mask.
For some people, being recognised is just part of being famous, and this is the price you pay for being in the public eye. But why should it be? If Blindboy wants to have a world-famous podcast but also go to a friend's wedding without being bothered, should he not be able to? Has Chappell Roan given up her right to privacy in exchange for global fame?
I can’t help but recall what even pre-social media viral fame did to the likes of Britney Spears, whose public breakdown is well-documented and cemented in the millennial public consciousness.
Should celebrities be allowed to do what they love, perform for millions of people on TV, record podcasts, write books… and still be allowed privacy in their daily life? Perhaps, if we took a more empathetic view of celebrities, it would allow them to stay in the public eye longer, while retaining their mental health. What if we did leave Britney alone? Would she have given us more in return? And been happier because of it?
Even if you believe famous people waive their right to anonymity, you can’t possibly think it’s fair for a shop worker to be exposed to 1.7 million people while simply doing their job. Sure, they aren’t doing anything troubling, and no harm is directly caused to them in the video - but what about the harm of knowing your face is online for millions to see, and there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it? I am curious if this gives others the sort of nightmares it gives me? Or is this unique to ND people?
Let me know in the comments below.
I had a busy weekend solo-parenting our toddler and dogs - not a lot of grass was touched as the whole thing was very tricky, but back to normality now.
Other things I’ve also enjoyed this week:
📚In Ascension by Martin MacInnes - I picked up a signed copy of this at Toppings when I was in Edinburgh for the Scottish Half Marathon, and I finished reading it this week. It’s a sci-fi tale akin to Our Wives Under The Sea and Project Hail Mary. Readers beware, while it falls under the genre of sci-fi, this is definitely a character-driven novel as family dynamics, mental health, and guilt all take centre stage.
🎭 Prima Facie (National Theatre Live) - I finally got to see Jodie Comer’s incredible one-woman show at the cinema. This story deals with difficult topics and comes with a hefty trigger warning, but if you can bear it then it’s absolutely worth a watch while it’s still in theatres.
🎭 Fern Brady (Tyne Theatre and Opera House) - I was so lucky to see Fern’s stand-up show at the weekend, and somehow, I must have booked second-row seats, so we have a fantastic view. Fern is one of my favorite comedians right now; her autistic honesty and self-deprecation are unmatched.
See you next week,
Ellen x
🎧I’m on Spotify!
If you like the audio version of this newsletter, you can listen to them all over on Spotify. Here’s the last issue:
💌 About this email
I’m Ellen, and I write about mental health for the chronically online. I am a freelance copywriter, strategist and web designer, and I work from home with my husband, Craig, at Content By The Sea. We have two rescue greyhounds, Potter and Harmony, and a toddler.
I started this newsletter in March 2020 and have sent over 180 emails; currently, I have over 1,200 subscribers. I write about a wide variety of topics, including diet culture, my love of running, jealousy, my life falling apart, mam guilt, and this dystopian world we all live in.
💛 How you can support me
If you like reading my weekly emails, you can give me a kickback in one or more of the following ways:
📨 Share this post
📬 Subscribe for free (if you haven’t already!)
💬 Leave a comment on this newsletter
💰Sign up to be a paid supporter of the newsletter for just £4 a month or £40 a year.
The current perks of being a paid subscriber are receiving one extra Touching Grass email each month with all of my top films, shows, podcasts and books. Most importantly, you are supporting me in continuing to write this newsletter week after week.
Insightful as always, Ellen. I totally agree everyone (celebs included) have a right to their own privacy. That filming thing is so bizarre too. I can understand if someone's filming a video in a park or something and obviously people are gonna be walking by in the background (but you also could see the camera and, if desired, walk a different way). But walking by in background is very different from being the unintentional subject of someone else's video for presumably profit. Weird.
I can understand some nuance for celebrities, I think it's natural for admirers to want to talk to them... But there needs to be a line. Like respecting if they say no or don't want to/have time to talk to you. Or if you see a celeb out with their kids, or a context that is just not appropriate to approach them like church, a funeral, they look upset, etc, just leave them alone... I think that's just basic respect?
Maybe the correct answer is not to bother them at all. In either case, I can't understand people who get mad at someone for wanting some space or saying no to a request, like Chappell Roan did. That's when you apologize, politely say have a good day and leave.
Overall I view social media in general (as a technology, as an invention) to be a net positive effect in many areas, but it has made culture/social interaction quite skewed too...