IndyCar drivers face backlash over social media etiquette claims with fan engagement targeted

What should proper driver social media etiquette look like? How should driver respond to fans? And should they ever respond to criticism? These arguments are being hotly discussed in the IndyCar community after recent drama regarding Conor Daly.

Earlier this week, the part-time IndyCar driver responded to a fan’s critical social media post in order to defend himself, but it sparked a massive community-wide discussion about the ethics of social media, and what should be considered appropriate conduct.

Social media use in IndyCar

Social media has become an integral part of society in the last decade, though many athletes use social media services differently. In the Formula 1 world, for example, drivers utilize social media more to curate a brand image than to interact with fans — but in the much smaller IndyCar world, driver-to-fan interaction is a regular occurrence.

However, IndyCar drivers also seem especially quick to respond to criticism from fans. Earlier this week, Conor Daly responded to several fans who had written critical X posts about him. Those tweets did not tag Conor Daly but did feature his name. The users he responded to deleted their posts and/or locked their X accounts, but they were still flooded with negativity from other fans defending Daly.

This is not the first time this has happened in IndyCar. Recently, Tony Kanaan quoted a fan’s X post that expressed disappointment in Arrow McLaren. Kanaan’s response ultimately resulted in other people flooding that fan’s mentions with rude posts.

The affair raised several critical concerns about driver social media use, and the varying opinions surrounding that usage. While there is no singular correct answer here, the larger issues at hand create fascinating food for thought when considering what social media use should look like.

More from IndyCar history:

👉 Explained: The chaotic history of the IndyCar split and reunification

👉 Aeroscreen: The life-saving IndyCar technology that was rejected by Formula 1

To respond or not respond?

At its core, the current debate in the IndyCar world circles around whether or not a driver should ever respond to a fan’s criticism, and whether or not they should do so in a defensive way.

Daly’s defenders have argued that Daly has every right to respond to a fan speaking negatively about him or his career; he has a right to defend himself, to clear up misinformation, or to lay a rumor to rest. Many folks in this category are free speech advocates, and they feel that anyone who initially writes a post about a driver should expect that driver to respond.

On the other hand are fans pushing for more accountability and professionalism from drivers when it comes to social media — primarily in this case, that means avoiding “punching down.” In this case, “punching down” refers to a prominent social media personality, like a racing driver, using their platform to argue with fans. This segment of fans has argued that drivers should never engage with fans in a negative way, or to seek out a more private means of solving their differences.

Tagging, not tagging, and snitch tagging

Of course, there is never a clear cut answer when it comes to whether or not a driver should respond to a fan, and the ongoing conversation in the IndyCar community has also involved the ethics of things like tagging and name searching.

Many fans were particularly upset about Daly’s response to negative critiques because the fans involved did not directly tag or mention him in their post. By not tagging Daly, that fan signaled that this is a post they did not necessarily intend for Daly to see. That has resulted in the argument that Daly was “name searching” — or, searching for himself — on X and only responding to anyone speaking critically of him.

This sparked additional debate about the ethics of name searching in general, as well as the more specific ethics of name searching with the intention of responding to criticism.

Of course, the recent introduction of personally curated “for you” algorithms has introduced an additional layer to these arguments. Many drivers have argued that they responded to posts they weren’t tagged in only because those posts appeared on their “for you” page. In effect, they were not seeking out criticism, but that criticism found its way to them anyway.

Another issue has come in the form of what is known as “snitch tagging.” This is the term for when a social media user tags the subject of a post in the replies to that post. In these cases, the initial post doesn’t include a tag mentioning the driver, usually by design. Someone else instead steps in to “snitch” by bringing the post to the driver’s attention.

How should drivers use social media?

As the conversation continued, many fans began to wonder exactly how drivers should use social media. Some fans argued that drivers should be professional in their online interactions; after all, they are effectively representing their team, series, and sponsors. Social media use, in this belief, should be considered part of a driver’s press training.

Others feel that drivers, like everyone else, should be allowed to “let go” on social media, and to be themselves. The argument here often rests in the fact that no one likes the “boring, PR-friendly” drivers, and that fans crave personality.

Most people, though, seem to express a perspective that exists between those two poles — that drivers shouldn’t be totally banned from using social media to show off their personality, but that they should think harder about the parts of their personality they’d like to show.

Who is responsible for unintended consequences of social media engagement?

When a driver engages with a fan on social media in a negative way, that interaction often draws in a bevy of unintended consequences in the form of other replies. A large part of the current IndyCar community debate centers on who should be responsible for those consequences — and if a driver should be held at all accountable for them.

In this most recent case, the users that Conor Daly engaged with became the target of additional replies from previously uninvolved social media users that felt inclined to jump in and either defend Daly, or to simply make fun of the fan involved. In other instances, fans faced ongoing harassment or a bombardment of hateful messages.

In all of those instances, the driver was not directly responsible for how other social media users responded to the initial poster… but many folks have argued that other social media users never would have responded had the driver not done so first, which means the driver should take on some level of responsibility. Especially in instances where the target is a woman, a person of color, a teenager, or a member of any other community that faces increased instances of harassment.

But of course, there is no easy answer to any of these questions, which is why the debate has continued for the last several days. Where do you fall? Let us know in the comments.

Read next: F1’s pain, USA’s gain: The seven racing talents that F1 teams missed out on