Screencaps as Insurance: Can We Ever Feel Truly Safe in Private Chat Groups?

This week on Facebook, a lifestyle journalist had a bad experience at a restaurant, posted a scathingly honest review about it (two out of 10!) in a private group, and initiated a debate in my corner of the internet about the pros and cons of writing harsh feedback. The discussion detoured to the benefits of praising in public, criticizing in private, yada yada yada. Frankly, the latter would have been a meaningful contribution to this whole kerfuffle. 

But instead, the journalist published screencaps of her text exchange with the chef—big chunks of passive aggression masked by variations of “hehes,” “bless yous,” and “hope you improves.” Normally, I sit back with popcorn to watch the implosion before moving on to the next social media controversy. But, like how it may have seemed to that journalist her moral duty to display screencaps of a private conversation and set it to public, it’s also my moral duty to say that the progression of these events is not okay.

ALSO READ

Esquire's Best Restaurants of 2022

That Band Sucks: Why Music Criticism in the Philippines Does Not Exist

Bad dining experiences will happen. Negative reviews will happen. If Guy Fieri managed to pick himself up from Pete Wells’ verbal assault on the New York Times, any chef can reassess the way they cook their pork chops. Arguments happen between two people who don’t see eye to eye.

Screencaps have become currency in this pervasive receipt culture; a form of free insurance, if you will. The practice has brought down the reputations of celebrities like Adam Levine, Armie Hammer, Kanye West, and even, briefly, Stranger Things’ Noah Schnapp when he bared Doja Cat’s DMs. Granted, most of these examples aren’t exactly saints, but it does make you wonder about the level of privacy violation in these situations.

Most people cultivate private and public personas. You could be cool and collected before strangers but wild and chaotic with your friends. People are typically more open and vulnerable in a private setting. They allow themselves to be “unfiltered” because they still believe a seemingly intimate and honest conversation can be a safe space. In this era where everyone keeps talking about the value of authenticity, it’s ironic when someone else uses your honesty against you and outs you in public for the sake of…better pork?

Whether or not there is an incongruence between someone’s personas is not up for another person to reveal. Unless it’s a matter of public safety, of course, which, in most cases, it’s not. Unless you were violated by a married male celebrity or scammed online by an unscrupulous seller, what is the point of publishing a private conversation except to spur the battle-ready internet mob?

In most countries, it is illegal to record a conversation without consent. Oftentimes there are far-reaching consequences. How is this instance any different? How is this okay? How will I ever have an honest-to-goodness conversation again without fear that I’ll get screen-capped for insurance. 

Anyone should be able to write about a poor dining experience—to be fair, the initial review did have some, er, positives (“very mod,” “super cute”). You could argue that a negative writeup affects people’s livelihood, but the money you use to pay for your meal also comes from your livelihood. And, equally important, some people just need to be more open to comments, constructive or otherwise; and the fact that you can’t please everyone. But everyone should still enjoy private discussions without fear of reckoning.

Social media networks can make all these fancy confidentiality and security settings, but it’s not the big bad internet machine that we should be worried about when it comes to breaching privacy. It's the seething hand behind the screen.