this question has been plaguing me as I've had nowhere to pose it to others. is the concept of "parasocial" (in a harmful sense) only applicable if personal boundaries are being actively crossed? or - could the concept also apply if a "nobody" (no followers/popularity online) is being openly friendly and regularly interacting with a "big account" of some kind?

I'm personally used to the idea of participating in artistic communities, not so much passively engaging as a "fan," and I'm also used to "showing up" in communities I find fun, by liking, commenting, attending streams or events, and generally finding common ground with others who like the same things I do. and nowadays I'm legit starting to wonder if this makes me a bad "parasocial" if I'm doing so (if I have the gall) towards someone who is very popular and well-known. 😂 because I guess why would they want to interact with me, a "nobody?" (rhetorical question!)

I won't name names as I don't want to slander anyone unnecessarily, but I WILL say that I've definitely encountered both people with popular accounts who do feel that smaller accounts should keep their distance (but bigger accounts are welcome to engage), as well as popular accounts who seem to appreciate the interaction for what it is. I made a rather good friend by being a regular commenter, and on another platform, one popular creator routinely replies to many of the comments he receives & has mentioned both recognizing certain usernames and being happy to see them. 

but still! it is a bit alarming to wonder if by simply being present and friendly to a very "popular" account online, you might be labeled "parasocial" and ostracized on such basis. I do know that parasocial "fans" can be extremely toxic of course, and even dangerous. but I don't think the difference between whether or not someone is or isn't being parasocial online should necessarily depend on how many "followers" one might have.

but is there a basis for that? am I perhaps not considering all angles? if someone on instagram commented on every post someone like, say beyoncé uploaded, and then sent her a dm that said "hello! I love your music! what's your favorite kind of song to write?" - I could see people thinking that's weird (I don't. but I could see general social disapproval being leveled at that lol.) so given that there's a social hierarchy in place regarding pop culture celebrities, is it actually reasonable to also have a hierarchy in place based on internet popularity? would it be genuinely weird and uncomfortable for someone to interact with another artist as a peer of a community if that person did not have a large follower base of their own? do the metrics/numbers define that difference for us?

Huh.. I never knew there was a word for it, so thank you for expanding my vocabulary. Although, to tightly define it? I'm not sure. Like so many things, it feels like it needs to be judged case-by-case.

I have been on both sides, and never allowed popularity or fandom to change the way I behaved. One of my early tumblr accounts had over three thousand followers, who seemed legit (not bots) whenever I checked them out. I would always respond to anyone who took the time to talk to me. I needed a change of scenery so I deleted that account and spent a few years offline.

I've been friends with people who literally became famous. They stopped talking to me, presumably because they were busy, but eventually I needed to cut ties with all of the “friends" I had who felt like strangers. I unfollowed and moved on. Strangely, some of them are still following my old, empty accounts (and following very few other people). It seems like they still have an attachment to our good memories, but when I reach out once every decade or so, I'm met with silence. I don't know if that's their popularity drowning me out, or if that's just how life goes now that we're so much older.

In the last couple of years, for a while, I chose to only follow artists with fewer than three hundred followers. I'm not sure what I was trying to prove by doing that, but it felt right, to focus my attention on newcomers who weren't already numb to conversation. I've helped people (friends) break their 2k, 5k, and 10k goals by promoting them, doing free art, and offering raffle prizes. They would get to where they wanted to be and then suddenly stop talking to me. I didn't grill them over it, I just drifted away to be with kinder, more appreciative people.

You've got to be careful about not letting just anybody get too close. You need to recognize when a fan is only supporting you for their own gain. Noticing parasitic behavior and distancing yourself from it wouldn't make you a social parasite, that's just taking care of yourself. Shutting out friends because they aren't as cool and talented as the people you admire? Well, that's a bit scummy, and if you do that, don't be mad when others avoid you like a parasite.

@Cynicallia I totally hear/vibe with what you're saying here 😮 I think it's the answer to a slightly different question though. What you've laid out above seems to be about how people might grow apart over time or when to leave behind past friendships that aren't mutual anymore, perhaps due to popularity of one or more sides involved. 

I guess I might be asking more about new interactions. Like, is it inherently wrong/creepy/entitled for someone with a low follower count in an artistic community to interact in a friendly manner with someone with a high follower count, after encountering their work and desiring to express interest? Does that answer change if both parties have high follower counts? Why or why not? 

There is this thing, often called "relationship anarchy" but which I never saw as needing a name, that I think of in this context. "Relationship anarchy" refers to the fact that, even though social dynamics might follow norms revolving around what their defining traits are, in the end, a social dynamic is defined by what you and the other individuals agree on. For example, we might "expect" that if two people are married that they might live together, but there's nothing set in stone, no universal ethic/law of physics, that says a relationship "ceases to be" a relationship if the two individuals voluntarily live kilometers from each other. We might "expect" one of the people in a relationship is being a cheater if they treat a third person like they should be treating the second person in the relationship, and we might treat this as a universal law, but the three might come back and argue that nothing is being "cheated" because this wasn't one of the rules of the game so-to-speak and that all three people consider it fine in that particular relationship. This is something that can apply to all human relations (e.g. lovers, communal acquaintances, allies, coworkers, etc.) which are just a sum of their parts, and that can be said here. Whatever is agreeable is agreeable no matter how parasocial it seems, and whatever isn't crosses over into less-than-moral territory. It is not good to assume, and it's even less good to judge, no matter to what extent the masses are involved.

Okay, so 😆 I totally agree with you on like the basis of personal relationships with someone! but the question I suppose I'm asking is how should one theoretically approach this social interaction before a relationship is established. 

There is no existing relationship. There is no prior interaction. Person A exists in art community X. Person B also exists in art community X. Person A is someone who interacts with the community, commenting, sharing, conversing with others, asks people about their projects, stories, characters, etc. Person A has a low follower count, Person B has a high follower count. Person B feels that it was inappropriate for Person A to approach them within the community, because they are not peers in regards to the respective sizes of their audiences.

Given these details, should person A recognize that interacting with a community member of higher standing is an inexcusably audacious thing to do? Maybe specifically because Person B is very popular and can't just interact with anyone? Or is it enough for Person A to simply respect Person B's wishes to back off/not approach if requested? And still be understood to have not intentionally demanded anything unreasonable of person B?

I just have always treated art communities like they're places to interact with and lift up other artists! 😄 but should we stop doing that in specific circumstances like differing follower counts? are there other rules that are unspoken but universally understood? what would the general consensus be, do you think?

Different people might have different takes on it, as the OP hints at. Someone might see smaller people as calling for distance, for why would they aim so high. Others might be instantaneous in becoming involved with someone. It should be noted there are no hard rules. It's all subjective (which I would say about the three other philosophical questions this week minus some "minor" objective aspects such as recognition of ethical qualities). I myself am big in a few different ways if you know where to find that spark, but my prince would not have to be in another castle or even his own castle, he would just have to be a good companion, a good frog prince from the backwoods who is his best self regardless of what else he is. If you're civil and courteous, the rest is perception. No worries of audaciousness.

When you put it that way, it reminds me of the time Kingdom Hearts was first made. Disney, as it always has been, was an enormous company. Square Enix (now known as just Square), though very successful, was the rookie. When it was announced Disney and Square would be collaborating on Kingdom Hearts, it baffled many people that not only was Little Square working with Big Disney but Disney was giving Square most of the lead, even rejecting making Mickey the main character (we later got Sora, with Mickey as the king of wherever Kingdom Hearts takes place), with Disney and Square seeming like the corporate equivalent to a male and female anglerfish being social. But Square had the goods and we got one of the most successful game series of all time.

ohh okay I finally get what you're saying. like it's not subjective within an interaction but in the broad scheme of things it would be subjective from person to person. and I guess there's no real way to know for sure or like, establish some kind of philosophical rule about it. I like the example with kingdom hearts that's really cool too

My introduction to the term "parasocial relationship" was in the context of YouTube Personalities™, as an audience that assumes a level of familiarity without ever actually interacting with the subject. Specifically, I think of people like Markiplier who'll put personal vulnerabilities on camera, and the fans mistake knowledge for understanding and voyeurism for an actual rapport. In that sense, I don't think general commenting, even if unrequited, would be considered parasocial unless it's veering into stalker vibes. My default approach is to be friendly with people I follow, and in the case of Side 7 I've drastically stepped up my level of engagement in an attempt to foster user retention, but I never presume to "know" someone unless casual banter begets more heartfelt dialogue—and even then I have only a handful of e-friends I consider genuine confidants.

As to whether popularity should determine acceptable social links: that's textbook cliqueism and tells you all you need to know about the celeb's integrity.