Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Charlton to boycott Social Media
Comments
-
True though, mate, right? People are rightly very vocal but most wont stop using it. Their need for their fix far out weighs their morality and vociferous condemnation of this abhorrent, enabling, platform.cfgs said:
Stop spoiling one of the stereotypes that is a cornerstone of every Charlton supporters soul.Big_Bad_World said:Why only 4 days and not a complete ban until these companies do something about it? If you really cared you'd remove yourself from the platforms completely. Goes for every single person that uses that shitfest of a site.
People care more about being able to get their entire lifes news from that toxic hellhole than they do about taking a stand.
How many people on here have/would remove themselves indefinitely until something is actually done? Also ask yourself why you haven't already.3 -
Advertising companies losing a load of content will affect those companies. Angry racists will stay racists, but getting those companies attention and getting them to put proper controls on content is important3
-
The modern world is about aggressively condemning people for aggressively condemning people. However I use Twitter to appear old and pious, I love asking the yoof to use less potty mouth language.Big_Bad_World said:
True though, mate, right? People are rightly very vocal but most wont stop using it. Their need for their fix far out weighs their morality and vociferous condemnation of this abhorrent, enabling, platform.cfgs said:
Stop spoiling one of the stereotypes that is a cornerstone of every Charlton supporters soul.Big_Bad_World said:Why only 4 days and not a complete ban until these companies do something about it? If you really cared you'd remove yourself from the platforms completely. Goes for every single person that uses that shitfest of a site.
People care more about being able to get their entire lifes news from that toxic hellhole than they do about taking a stand.
How many people on here have/would remove themselves indefinitely until something is actually done? Also ask yourself why you haven't already.3 -
Why don’t they do this permanently ?0
-
In a world where people think it’s perfectly acceptable to walk the streets of London with a Star of David pinned to their chest in way of protest, I really don’t think this goes far enough.
But it’s a start.2 -
There are several ways to stop these types of abuse from happening:
1) introduce moderation so that before anything is posted live online it is moderated - this is already in place with comments sections on some websites. This would also prevent live streaming of things like terror attacks or gang fights.
2) ensure that everyone who has a social media account has to provide real name/address information as part of the registration processMany of those carrying out the abuse are aided and abetted by the ease with which they can post their shit online and hide behind the anonymity of user names.3 -
My social media usage, if that is what this is, is here and a running forum from the states.
I stopped using Twitter, Facebook etc after brief use years ago.What should I do?0 -
Presumably this means that the OS will be the only place updated with the team news, match updates etc0
-
perhaps because they are taking gradual steps.wmcf123 said:Why don’t they do this permanently ?
They have asked for more action, then individual clubs, like Swansea and Rangers, boycotted.
This seems like the next rung up.
Maybe a permanent boycott will be needed but why jump straight to the most drastic act when there are other steps inbetween.
Twitter can be a very useful, fun and informative platform for normal fans and people in general, it's a great way, for example, the museum to hightlight what it does and share info with other fans and historians.
Unfortunately it also gives too much leeway to trolls, racists and conspiracy theorists, they are the problem, not the platform itself. We've seen in the past videos, video games, pop music, TV, radio, films and comics blamed for social problems.
0 -
Not sure I’m going to be able to get through those days without Mr Adkins Twitter posts.5
- Sponsored links:
-
WIOTOS rules OKkillerandflash said:Presumably this means that the OS will be the only place updated with the team news, match updates etc0 -
People more worried about their own interests than the greater good. That's what it really boils down to.
Have the courage of your convictions. Stand up for what you believe in and boycott the platform. For as long as apathy seems to reign, nothing will change. These sites know this and will wait and watch as everyone returns after 4 days of back slapping that will achieve nothing other than giving the 4 dayers a false sense of achievement.....until the next time.1 -
BBC and SKY will probably provide the line ups tookillerandflash said:Presumably this means that the OS will be the only place updated with the team news, match updates etc
Football reporting wasnt invented when social media came along
2 -
I must admit, I can't see the point of a few days. I respect people like Thierry Henry who say they are coming off social media for good, but what is the point of coming off it and then going back on it within a few days whether they make the changes you are demanding or not?
The point has been made that these companies take stuff down quickly when there is a copyright infringement and that is surely because they are scared of legal action and paying money. Surely the solution has to be a legal one to give them the incentive to spend the money required to police this.4 -
Volume of traffic drives revenue. If you hit the traffic, you hit people's pockets. I assume that is the intention. Whether it will be enough to spook the platforms is another thing...2
-
But you are on social media! Here you are on this forum which clearly meets the definition of "social media".seth plum said:Not being on social media I don’t really know what kind of thing such a boycott would signify.
However the issue of racism in my view ought to be high on every agenda, and in the forefront of people’s minds all the time.
If this social media thing helps people reflect on, and eventually stand up to, racism, then I would like to see more and more of this kind of thing.
Anything that diminishes racists even a titchy bit is welcome as far as I am concerned.
Better than passive acceptance.2 -
AFKA and Lookie aren’t manipulating the site to determine what you see, though, which is what Twitter and Facebook’s algorithms do.cafcfan said:
But you are on social media! Here you are on this forum which clearly meets the definition of "social media".seth plum said:Not being on social media I don’t really know what kind of thing such a boycott would signify.
However the issue of racism in my view ought to be high on every agenda, and in the forefront of people’s minds all the time.
If this social media thing helps people reflect on, and eventually stand up to, racism, then I would like to see more and more of this kind of thing.
Anything that diminishes racists even a titchy bit is welcome as far as I am concerned.
Better than passive acceptance.1 -
I can't see all my promotes!InspectorSands said:
AFKA and Lookie aren’t manipulating the site to determine what you see, though, which is what Twitter and Facebook’s algorithms do.cafcfan said:
But you are on social media! Here you are on this forum which clearly meets the definition of "social media".seth plum said:Not being on social media I don’t really know what kind of thing such a boycott would signify.
However the issue of racism in my view ought to be high on every agenda, and in the forefront of people’s minds all the time.
If this social media thing helps people reflect on, and eventually stand up to, racism, then I would like to see more and more of this kind of thing.
Anything that diminishes racists even a titchy bit is welcome as far as I am concerned.
Better than passive acceptance.
10 -
That is absolutely what should happen. Steps are being taken, not enough and not fast enough, but it is not like nothing is happening. The individual case you mention is valid, but I don't think it becomes a reason for a football-wide social media blackout not to happen or to make it futile. I don't think it has much to do with anonymous trolls using social media to racially abuse people? This is a specific campaign aimed at a specific problem.clb74 said:
Just read the BBC article on the blackout.Algarveaddick said:
What would you suggest instead? This is not a sarcastic challenge, I am genuinely interested in what people think would be effective.nelsonsleftfoot said:Futile. Not in favour of this one.
Liverpool made a comment on the abuse of a couple of thier players.
Would this be the same Liverpool who when one of thier players was found guilty of racial abuse they stood by him.
Even to the extent the next game even all were t shirts in support of the guilty party.
Also took Liverpool years to make the apology to the player who was racially abused.
The abuse on social media does need sorting out, but how about English football sort out the way we deal with abuse in the game aswell.
The article you mention states that it is a symbolic gesture, which is why there is no permanent blackout. Why should all the millions of prefectly decent, well behaved people who use social media, and enjoy interacting with their club not be able to do so because of the actions of a few? I could make all kinds of wild hyperbolic comparisons, but hopefully most of CL members are bright enough to understand the point.1 -
There are many instances of this thought process that you could argue.Algarveaddick said:
That is absolutely what should happen. Steps are being taken, not enough and not fast enough, but it is not like nothing is happening. The individual case you mention is valid, but I don't think it becomes a reason for a football-wide social media blackout not to happen or to make it futile. I don't think it has much to do with anonymous trolls using social media to racially abuse people? This is a specific campaign aimed at a specific problem.clb74 said:
Just read the BBC article on the blackout.Algarveaddick said:
What would you suggest instead? This is not a sarcastic challenge, I am genuinely interested in what people think would be effective.nelsonsleftfoot said:Futile. Not in favour of this one.
Liverpool made a comment on the abuse of a couple of thier players.
Would this be the same Liverpool who when one of thier players was found guilty of racial abuse they stood by him.
Even to the extent the next game even all were t shirts in support of the guilty party.
Also took Liverpool years to make the apology to the player who was racially abused.
The abuse on social media does need sorting out, but how about English football sort out the way we deal with abuse in the game aswell.
The article you mention states that it is a symbolic gesture, which is why there is no permanent blackout. Why should all the millions of prefectly decent, well behaved people who use social media, and enjoy interacting with their club not be able to do so because of the actions of a few? I could make all kinds of wild hyperbolic comparisons, but hopefully most of CL members are bright enough to understand the point.
Why should all of the decent gun owners in America have their right to own a gun taken away because of the actions of a few? Same argument, different arena.
Why should decent drivers have to drive at 30mph just because of the actions of a few that are reckless? Same argument, different arena.
All boils down to self interest (this isn't a pop at you, either. Just that you raised that specific argument).3 - Sponsored links:
-
The problem with (1) is that it would be prohibitively expensive. Websites are 'published'. That is, there is a publisher (the site owner) who controls the content it publishes. That publisher is subject to laws, including libel laws, precisely because they are publishing the content. They are responsible for that content and the publisher can be jailed when if the content is egregiously libellous. Facebook and Twitter are not publishers, they are platforms. In the same way that 'television' and 'radio' are not broadcasters, but 'ITV' and 'LBC' are. You wouldn't hold 'television' to account if IT broke the law. Social media cannot moderate the hundreds of thousands of posts and images that are created every hour.EveshamAddick said:There are several ways to stop these types of abuse from happening:
1) introduce moderation so that before anything is posted live online it is moderated - this is already in place with comments sections on some websites. This would also prevent live streaming of things like terror attacks or gang fights.
2) ensure that everyone who has a social media account has to provide real name/address information as part of the registration processMany of those carrying out the abuse are aided and abetted by the ease with which they can post their shit online and hide behind the anonymity of user names.
And the problem with (2) is that much of the great content published on social media is created precisely because it's anonymous. Leaks, investigative citizen journalism, substantiated rumours. All this stuff would be lost if there was a requirement to provide de-anonymised accounts. It's spectacularly authoritarian to require that an individual must prove their traceable, verifiable personally-identifiable information in order to have a voice on social media. There are some countries that have taken that direction, but I am very happy that the UK hasn't taken that route.3 -
It's better than doing nothing i guess, but i can't help but feel it means nothing until the clubs with huge global fan bases or world famous players do the same.
Are twitter going to give much of a shit if a club they've possibly never heard of don't post anything for a few days, or would it have more impact if (for example) Ronaldo who has over 350m twitter/instagram followers does something?0 -
Big_Bad_World said:
There are many instances of this thought process that you could argue.Algarveaddick said:
That is absolutely what should happen. Steps are being taken, not enough and not fast enough, but it is not like nothing is happening. The individual case you mention is valid, but I don't think it becomes a reason for a football-wide social media blackout not to happen or to make it futile. I don't think it has much to do with anonymous trolls using social media to racially abuse people? This is a specific campaign aimed at a specific problem.clb74 said:
Just read the BBC article on the blackout.Algarveaddick said:
What would you suggest instead? This is not a sarcastic challenge, I am genuinely interested in what people think would be effective.nelsonsleftfoot said:Futile. Not in favour of this one.
Liverpool made a comment on the abuse of a couple of thier players.
Would this be the same Liverpool who when one of thier players was found guilty of racial abuse they stood by him.
Even to the extent the next game even all were t shirts in support of the guilty party.
Also took Liverpool years to make the apology to the player who was racially abused.
The abuse on social media does need sorting out, but how about English football sort out the way we deal with abuse in the game aswell.
The article you mention states that it is a symbolic gesture, which is why there is no permanent blackout. Why should all the millions of prefectly decent, well behaved people who use social media, and enjoy interacting with their club not be able to do so because of the actions of a few? I could make all kinds of wild hyperbolic comparisons, but hopefully most of CL members are bright enough to understand the point.
Why should all of the decent gun owners in America have their right to own a gun taken away because of the actions of a few? Same argument, different arena.
Why should decent drivers have to drive at 30mph just because of the actions of a few that are reckless? Same argument, different arena.
All boils down to self interest (this isn't a pop at you, either. Just that you raised that specific argument).
As I wrote, I hope most CL members will be bright enough to see the point.
2 -
Seriously fighting the urge to edit this post to some mod-worshipping statement :-)InspectorSands said:
AFKA and Lookie aren’t manipulating the site to determine what you see, though, which is what Twitter and Facebook’s algorithms do.cafcfan said:
But you are on social media! Here you are on this forum which clearly meets the definition of "social media".seth plum said:Not being on social media I don’t really know what kind of thing such a boycott would signify.
However the issue of racism in my view ought to be high on every agenda, and in the forefront of people’s minds all the time.
If this social media thing helps people reflect on, and eventually stand up to, racism, then I would like to see more and more of this kind of thing.
Anything that diminishes racists even a titchy bit is welcome as far as I am concerned.
Better than passive acceptance.
10 -
As said previously, I’d go nuclear and introduce that to have the ability to use the Internet / contribute towards it, you need to have a licence, obtained by undertaking the equivalent of a provisional driving licence.A clear process of individual accountability, education of usage, moderate exam to prove to individual awareness of right / wrong usage, points punishment / removal of licence for falling short of acceptable standards. And then strong criminal punishments for individuals and impacting punishments for companies not maintaining sufficient controls.
Racism isn’t the ultimate problem, it’s the allowance for ALL forms of nastiness, trolling, bullying, barrier-pushing and shock / edge contributions that has encouraged a race to the bottom and vessels of hatred to emerge and become accepted as the norm. This isn’t something that can be done by soft measures imo, it needs an almighty shift.7 -
If it was just Charlton you'd have a point @Chris_from_Sidcup but this is all premier league and football clubs boycotting at the same timeChris_from_Sidcup said:It's better than doing nothing i guess, but i can't help but feel it means nothing until the clubs with huge global fan bases or world famous players do the same.
Are twitter going to give much of a shit if a club they've possibly never heard of don't post anything for a few days, or would it have more impact if (for example) Ronaldo who has over 350m twitter/instagram followers does something?
"The club will join with all Premier League and EFL clubs in taking a stance against the continued abuse and emphasise to social media companies that they must do more to eradicate online hate."0 -
I hope I'm missing the point as they are perfectly valid, non-hyperbolic, comparisons. Only difference is that Twitter users are so addicted to using the platform that they place their wants above more important issues they claim to support.Algarveaddick said:Big_Bad_World said:
There are many instances of this thought process that you could argue.Algarveaddick said:
That is absolutely what should happen. Steps are being taken, not enough and not fast enough, but it is not like nothing is happening. The individual case you mention is valid, but I don't think it becomes a reason for a football-wide social media blackout not to happen or to make it futile. I don't think it has much to do with anonymous trolls using social media to racially abuse people? This is a specific campaign aimed at a specific problem.clb74 said:
Just read the BBC article on the blackout.Algarveaddick said:
What would you suggest instead? This is not a sarcastic challenge, I am genuinely interested in what people think would be effective.nelsonsleftfoot said:Futile. Not in favour of this one.
Liverpool made a comment on the abuse of a couple of thier players.
Would this be the same Liverpool who when one of thier players was found guilty of racial abuse they stood by him.
Even to the extent the next game even all were t shirts in support of the guilty party.
Also took Liverpool years to make the apology to the player who was racially abused.
The abuse on social media does need sorting out, but how about English football sort out the way we deal with abuse in the game aswell.
The article you mention states that it is a symbolic gesture, which is why there is no permanent blackout. Why should all the millions of prefectly decent, well behaved people who use social media, and enjoy interacting with their club not be able to do so because of the actions of a few? I could make all kinds of wild hyperbolic comparisons, but hopefully most of CL members are bright enough to understand the point.
Why should all of the decent gun owners in America have their right to own a gun taken away because of the actions of a few? Same argument, different arena.
Why should decent drivers have to drive at 30mph just because of the actions of a few that are reckless? Same argument, different arena.
All boils down to self interest (this isn't a pop at you, either. Just that you raised that specific argument).
As I wrote, I hope most CL members will be bright enough to see the point.
So, I can only conclude that there wasn't much of a point being made other than 'I don't support the cause that much, as my right to post on there far outweighs the greater good that would come from boycotting the platform in support of all the victims of Twitter racism'.
Each to their own but it doesn't sit right with me, thankfully.
3 -
I agree.AFKABartram said:As said previously, I’d go nuclear and introduce that to have the ability to use the Internet / contribute towards it, you need to have a licence, obtained by undertaking the equivalent of a provisional driving licence.A clear process of individual accountability, education of usage, moderate exam to prove to individual awareness of right / wrong usage, points punishment / removal of licence for falling short of acceptable standards. And then strong criminal punishments for individuals and impacting punishments for companies not maintaining sufficient controls.
Racism isn’t the ultimate problem, it’s the allowance for ALL forms of nastiness, trolling, bullying, barrier-pushing and shock / edge contributions that has encouraged a race to the bottom and vessels of hatred to emerge and become accepted as the norm. This isn’t something that can be done by soft measures imo, it needs an almighty shift.
We need a license to drive a car, quite rightly and in this country at least to own a gun. Those are sensible control measures that don't restrict law abiding people rather then protect them.1 -
If Twitter (for example) is being held accountable by football clubs for the content produced by its users, wouldn't the reverse also be fair? That is, social media companies boycotting the broadcast or sharing of football clubs' content where those clubs' supporters' chants contain racism? In future, clubs will derive increasingly larger proportions of their revenue thanks to social media: the bigger the club, the larger the windfall. So, a reciprocal boycott in future could be very damaging indeed to clubs.
Has the football world in England grabbed the tiger's tail?0 -
I can't buy into the qualifications for the Internet or ID. The very nature of social media is that it is easy to join, it would lose it's appeal. Twitter isn't my sort of thing so I don't go on it, if people have that much off a problem with it why don't they just permanently leave it?0
