They say “people who have no life will always try to start drama in yours.” It’s fact that people who don’t feel good about themselves momentarily feel better when they judge others negatively. It’s also been seen that when people cannot generate interesting discussions based on knowledge or ideas, they gossip to stir people’s attention. People gossip in order to hurt those whose popularity, talents, or lifestyle they envy.

A blind item is a news story which we typically see and read in a gossip column, in which the details of the matter are reported while the identities of the people involved are not revealed. The invention of the blind item is credited to William d’ Alton Mann (1839–1920), publisher of Town Topics, who often used it for blackmailing.

Interestingly, communication privacy management (CPM), originally known as communication boundary management, is a systematic research theory designed to develop an evidence-based understanding of the way people make decisions about revealing and concealing private information. CPM theory suggests that individuals maintain and coordinate privacy boundaries (the limits of what they are willing to share) with various communication partners depending on the perceived benefits and costs of information disclosure. It was first developed by Sandra Petronio in 1991.

Petronio uses the metaphor ’boundary’ to explain that privacy of a person should be respected and the limit should not be crossed. Privacy boundaries draw divisions between private information and public information. This theory argues that when people disclose private information about somebody, they need to prove the level of accessibility accountability. An individual’s privacy boundary governs his or her self confession. Once a disclosure is made, the negotiation of privacy rules between the two parties is required. If a person has a reasonable desire to keep something private, it is disrespectful to ignore that person’s wishes without a compelling reason to do so. It is also called boundary turbulence.

In light of Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s suicide last month, many theories have emerged. While the case is still under investigation, and even as his relatives suspect foul play, one of the more prominent theories have been he was bullied by the brat packs of the film industry. Prominent film journalists and critics were also accused of writing despicable ‘blinds’ by journalists and one of them is Rajeev Masand. Bollywood actor Manoj Bajpayee and Filmmaker Apurva Asrani on Monday took to twitter to share the terrible things Masand wrote and passed off as Bollywood gossip. Masand is used to writing one small ‘blind’. That will be pure gossip, no names given but ample hints on who that person could be.

In September 2017 Masand wrote “A young male actor, recently reunited with his mentor, is reportedly giving the unit of his new film a hard time during an outdoor shoot. The actor, who is coming off a big dud, likes to give the impression that he’s all calm and Zen-like, but the crew on the new project says he’s consumed by insecurity.”

After Sushant’s death, many debates revolving ‘blind items’ that attack stars without naming them have begun on social media. Kangana Ranaut on Friday named and shamed the publications for writing blind items for Sushant Singh Rajput. Many celebrities have come out in support of this, for example, Kriti Sanon too said Blind Items should be ‘illegal and be banned.’ With the topic being debated on social media, a throwback (2017) video of Ranbir Kapoor slamming ‘blind items’ surfaced. During a podcast with a few stand-up comedians, Ranbir Kapoor was asked if he reads blind items. To this actor said blind Items are like really the scum of the earth.

Some mainstream media give space to blind items, a website like Oneshotoneplace.com OSOP exists solely for publishing blind items and pooling and solving them. Blind items not only safeguard entities creating them from potential lawsuits, the finish of them  encourages exaggeration and vulgarity. Corrections are rare, and if any, one can rarely guarantee that they flow through the same channels that the slander did. The acid lingers, gathering harmful contagions along the way.

Blind items are not limited only to India, they are world over famous. British tabloids are notorious for their celebrity hounding both on ground—as we know from Lady Diana’s tragic death—and in newsprint. In the US, the New York Post has a history of publishing blinds on page 6. More recently, the anonymous self-confessed entertainment lawyer who runs a website named Crazy Days and Nights was crowned King of the Hollywood Blind Item. “It’s one thing to run a blind item…. It’s a whole other beast to reveal that blind,” Vanity Fair said. “Crazy Days and Nights is all about the reveal. All it takes is one ‘tiny victory’ for an entire readership to assume all of Crazy Days and Nights are legitimate.”

When gossip travelled through salons and courts and letters and trunk calls, it got diluted along the way, its strength and flow twisted by time and memory and tongues. It didn’t come to us, or go back to the subjects themselves, like an acid attack on social media; hitting everyone at the same time, its menace gaining power through numbers, multiplying through forwards.

Gossip has always had the potential to cause damage but perhaps its powers were weaker when it was on slow-release. On today’s social media platforms they spread in seconds. As we make other changes in old habits to compensate and adapt to the new world we now inhabit—from using less single-use plastic to increased sensitivity in the way we address the disabled, this too calls for a change. For in a world plunging towards a mental health epidemic, gossip, and indeed a callous blind item, can be lethal. They can really ruin peace of mind because of their nastiness and uncouthness.