Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Facebook Social Networks Twitter United Kingdom

English Soccer Teams Have Started a Four-Day Social Media Boycott To Protest Online Abuse (theverge.com) 59

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
English soccer teams and organizations are all shutting down their Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts for the weekend as part of a massive social media blackout to advocate for better policies regarding discrimination and abuse that players and members of clubs receive on those platforms. From a report: Groups participating in the blackout include the Premier League, the English Football League, the Professional Footballers' Association, the Football Association, the League Managers Association, the Football Supporters' Association, and more. Clubs that are part of the Premier League, EFL, Barclays FA Women's Super League, and Women's Championship will all be shutting down their social channels over the weekend as part of the protest. The blackout comes after the various English soccer organizations banded together in February to request changes from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in an open letter requesting that the companies take stronger action against discriminatory and racist comments.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

English Soccer Teams Have Started a Four-Day Social Media Boycott To Protest Online Abuse More

English Soccer Teams Have Started a Four-Day Social Media Boycott To Protest Online Abuse

Comments Filter:

  • Good start (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mr307 ( 49185 ) on Friday April 30, 2021 @01:51PM (#61333050)

    4 whole days! In a row?!?! Wow impressive, how amazing, truly the heroes we all needed to lead the way.

    • Yes: make it a month and I will believe that they are taking a serious stand.

      • A month? Try, "We're not coming back until we see a serious effort to fix this." That might impress md.

    • 4 whole days! In a row?!?! Wow impressive, how amazing, truly the heroes we all needed to lead the way.

      Yep.

      Everyone could do Everyone a BIG favor, and just delete accounts and log off of social media permanently.

      Just say no, and the world would be a much nicer place.

      We weren't ever this split and divided prior to social media.

      Sure, there have always been problems, but before social media, people had to actually talk to each other and there were no swarms to shut someone up and try to cancel them out o

    • It would almost seem to me that you're accusing them of flopping. This is the kind of utter hatred that footballers face every day on social media. How dare you, good sir? How dare you!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The weekend is when the big games are and when everyone is looking for reactions, comments and to interact with their favourite players and managers. It will be noticed.

      • Doubtful. I don't know if there's ever been any kind of massive strike amongst the footballers, but there's been countless seasons cut short in the more popular American sports due to walkouts, etc. by the players. They're always back next year because it turns out the world gets along fine without top-level athletes. The average fan is just as willing to complain about the "overpaid whiners" on their own team as they are about the other team when it comes down to it. I don't expect any sympathy.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Why would they strike? They are annoyed about the social media companies not doing enough about the abuse they get.

          • The point was that athletes stop playing games for entire seasons and people seem to get by fine with the entire league being gone for a year, so no one is going to bat an eye over a half-week of no social media posts. I'd wager that the vast majority of the fan base doesn't even follow the athletes on any social media account and won't even notice that it occurred. Even in absence of their favorite sport, sports fans will just fine something else to bitch about in the meanwhile.

  • It is football!

    • Re:Football!!! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Friday April 30, 2021 @02:23PM (#61333174)
      Football is a game with two teams where each team has maximum of eleven players of whom one must be the goalkeeper. The objective of the game is for each team to convey a ball across the playing field using only their feet, past the opposing team’s defenders and deposit it in the opposing team’s goal. At no point is any player allowed to pick up the ball and run across the entire playing field with it.

      • Who cares.

        Both are games...
        A game is a simplified/simulated activity, that immature people do to train for real life and real activities. When they come of age, they stop playing and start doing.
        Grown men doing this is pathetic.
        The only thing more pathetic is not even doing yourself, but watching somebody else do it, while projecting oneself into that person, to escape from one's own disappointing/failed life. (Leading to a downward spiral.)

        And I say that as a, among other things, game designer. If you *act

        • Who cares.

          Both are games... A game is a simplified/simulated activity, that immature people do to train for real life and real activities. When they come of age, they stop playing and start doing. Grown men doing this is pathetic. The only thing more pathetic is not even doing yourself, but watching somebody else do it, while projecting oneself into that person, to escape from one's own disappointing/failed life. (Leading to a downward spiral.)

          And I say that as a, among other things, game designer. If you *actually* are immature or need to learn something, they are the best thing ever.

          You really need to visit Glasgow and tell a bunch of Celtic/Ranger fans that. Hint: wear riot police armour because otherwise you’ll end up in a wheelchair.

        • The only thing more pathetic is not even doing yourself, but watching somebody else do it, while projecting oneself into that person, to escape from one's own disappointing/failed life. (Leading to a downward spiral.)

          I'm pretty sure complaining about other people doing something they enjoy on the internet is even more pathetic, but that's just my opinion.

          I play games all the time, mostly because I enjoy them. I'm not particularly sure what real life activity checkers is training me to do, but I'm sure when I come of age I'll stop playing and start doing.

          And I say that as a, among other things, game designer.

          I think you misspelled "jackass".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by invid ( 163714 )
          It still makes lots of money.

        • A game is a simplified/simulated activity, that immature people do to train for real life and real activities. When they come of age, they stop playing and start doing.

          Good grief you sound boring. I'm glad I don't subscribe to your miserable notions of adulthood.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cederic ( 9623 )

          A game is a simplified/simulated activity, that immature people do to train for real life and real activities. When they come of age, they stop playing and start doing.

          Aye, and football trains you to move and engage with an opponent as a cohesive organised unit.

          I'd rather they keep to the football field and skip the martial alternative.

      • Football is a game with two teams where each team has maximum of eleven players of whom one must be the goalkeeper. The objective of the game is for each team to convey a ball across the playing field using only their feet, past the opposing teamâ(TM)s defenders and deposit it in the opposing teamâ(TM)s goal. At no point is any player allowed to pick up the ball and run across the entire playing field with it.

        Hmm...sure sounds like soccer to me.

        ;)

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by invid ( 163714 )
      There's no crying in Football!
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        that shouldn't prevent the spirit of the comics message being relevant.

        Even free speech / free expression has to have limits - some things are too appalling to be allowed and in particular there is NO right to say "comics" as a possessive, only as a plural.

        • False. A right is not measured by how you treat the best of your society... but on how you treat the worst.
          If you won't grant it to a baby-raping Wall Street cannibal Hitler... it is not a right.
          You do not get to choose what is acceptable or not. Otherwise you will define it however suits your agenda best at that day. And then you start becoming that Hitler yourself.

          Preventing that... Not becoming a Hitler in the name of stopping a Hitler... is the whole point of making something a right. In fact it is also

          • False. A right is not measured by how you treat the best of your society... but on how you treat the worst.

            If you won't grant it to a baby-raping Wall Street cannibal Hitler... it is not a right. You do not get to choose what is acceptable or not. Otherwise you will define it however suits your agenda best at that day. And then you start becoming that Hitler yourself.

            Preventing that... Not becoming a Hitler in the name of stopping a Hitler... is the whole point of making something a right. In fact it is

          • Firstly, whoosh.

            Secondly, hyperbole aside your argument is just backwards. The OPs point was that speech should have limits based on what is said, not who says it. Wall street cannibal Hitler would probably get a book deal and an interview with Oprah. Not so much if he threatened to kill the president.

            Thirdly, there is no place on Earth where speech is allowed without limit or consequence. There is always a line. You are arguing for the equivalent of a complete vacuum.

            D) A right is not universal. The UK has

            • D) A right is not universal. The UK has no right to freedom of speech. Many would argue that is more valid that pretending you have some universal law that guarantees unfettered and unrestricted speech (see 3)

              And lastly, your whole Hitler thing is just weird hyperbole that makes no sense.

              Makes perfect sense to me.

              Humanity is inherently shit. People will leverage whatever power they can to increase their power to facilitate selfish interests. The more power more tyrannical people behave. Add to this the fact people are easily owned cowards and you begin to appreciate the absolute necessity of structuring society in ways that minimizes the aggregation of power, minimize cowardice and maximize critical thinking.

              Hitler was one lunatic. He has an excuse. The whole country that followed him

          • Wow, calm down. As several people have pointed out all speech everywhere has limits. But more importantly the caricature that you use as an example would certainly, and justifiably, have limits put on their rights and liberties. Specifically being a child rapist and having committed genocide (and I guess insider trading?) would hopefully get you some pretty serious legal consequences which would limit just about all of your rights.

    • The same pattern can be seen with the media industry and profit:

      Not making a profit is not the same thing as being stolen from!
      You are not entitled to any profits.
      It's just that you did not earn that money!

      I bet this pattern could be applied to many more things.
      And I smell a commonality with the broke window fallacy too...

    • https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]

      This is as fundamentally misguided as https://xkcd.com/327/ [xkcd.com]

      Freedom of speech is a concept that is in no way dependent upon a states legal regime.

      • You are right. Freedom of speech is an ideal, just as all 'rights' are ideals. It is only by enshrining some part of it in law that it becomes more than a concept. Its like a dream - its meaningless unless you act on it, and its open to interpretation.

        The trouble is, once it is a law it is no longer a concept and like a dream will never actually make it into the real world intact. Hence the univeral fact that their are exceptions to freedom of speech (slander, incitement to riot or murder in the US, hate sp

        • The trouble is, once it is a law it is no longer a concept and like a dream will

          Laws limiting speech persist independently of the concept.

          never actually make it into the real world intact. Hence the univeral fact that their are exceptions to freedom of speech (slander, incitement to riot or murder in the US, hate speech in Europe, LÃse-majesté in Thailand).

          I don't think that freedom of speech means the freedom to utter the word "explode" into a bomb with a voice recognition trigger.

          Freedom of speech is not about what is literally spoken. Freedom of speech is the conveyance of thoughts and opinions without reprisal. This does not imply an ability to facilitate whatever one pleases thru the act of speaking.

          Slander and inciting riots by US legal standards are actions. You are free to convey negative op

          • You are arguing semantics to justify one position. I am suggesting there is always a line, its just a question of where you draw it. The standard American's position on 'freedom of speech' is not some universal provable constant - it is a position on a line chosen by society. It is not intrinsically 'correct' - it is arguable.

            If you want to show otherwise you will have to prove to me that 'slander' and 'hate speech' are somehow diametrically opposed, because I don't see it. A good 'hate speech' law would be

            • If you want to show otherwise you will have to prove to me that 'slander' and 'hate speech' are somehow diametrically opposed, because I don't see it.

              The point of freedom of speech is to convey thoughts and opinions without reprisal.

              Going around telling everyone what your opinion of them is communicating your thoughts.

              Making up shit in order to achieve an objective of ruining someone goes beyond simply communicating ideas. Here speaking is used as a means of facilitating action of ruining someone.

              A good 'hate speech' law would be exactly the same as standard 'slander' laws, but based on 'spreading lies in an effort to ruin a group'. Spreading lies about black people rather than spreading lies about an individual. I'm not arguing about whether they are right or wrong - just that they have a parity.

              From the shit I've been hearing out of Germany and rest of Europe it seems fairly clear hate speech laws in the real world do not work the same as US slander s

      • This is as fundamentally misguided

        As in not misguided at all. Free speech is a concept, but nowhere does it mean you can force other people to listen or host you.

        • As in not misguided at all. Free speech is a concept

          The cartoon is asserting free speech is dependent upon the states legal system. This is incorrect. Free speech is a concept that is not dependent on states legal regime.

          , but nowhere does it mean you can force other people to listen or host you.

          For the millionth time nowhere have I said or implied any such thing.

          • The cartoon is asserting free speech is dependent upon the states legal system. This is incorrect. Free speech is a concept that is not dependent on states legal regime.

            lol wut.

            For the millionth time nowhere have I said or implied any such thing.

            OK, my bad. I thought you had the usual beef with the cartoon. In fairness, your beef with it is not the usual one. It's also deeply silly.

            You are trying some sort of pedantic reading of the term "free speech" which doesn't hold up. A government can definitely depri

  • If they're being forced to use a social media account under their real names, I'd take that up with team management. Otherwise, just register @Footballplayer6969 if you want to share funny memes.

    These spoiled whiny primadonnas - and here I really mean celebrities in general, not trying to single out the ballkickers - want all the power of their celebrity checkmarks to force people to read their addled musings, but they don't want any of the responsibility. There's a special circle in hell for them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      Actually they want to be able to engage with fans (and yes, build commercial brands) online without being subjected to vicious racist abuse.

      Many fans want to hear from them too, and also decry the racism.

      I mean, take Raheem Sterling. He's an objectionable greedy little shit with terrible judgement that bleats on about systemic racism in a system that's made him a multi-millionaire purely because he can run past the world's best footballers with ease while keeping the ball with him.

      It's still wrong to attack

      • Oh boo hoo hoo. He has to read people saying nasty shit to him because he's too stupid to disable mention notifications from people he doesn't follow. It'd move me to song if I could find the world's tiniest violin.

        Celebrities literally stand up in front of news cameras on a routine basis. They can literally send a SMS and get attention from a reporter whenever they need it. If someone makes them wait for a table, I have to see a fucking story about it [today.com] plastered across the whole fucking internet for a day.

  • Just quit facebook completely (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dmay34 ( 6770232 ) on Friday April 30, 2021 @02:06PM (#61333112)

    Social Media is a trap for organizations. It seems so tempting to be able to reach SO MANY more people, but the fact is that it's rare that social media engagement converts to increased sales. It's better to just walk away and focus your marketing budget elsewhere.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      This isn't organizations mostly, it's the players. They have personal accounts, and many of the do enjoy interacting with the fans. They just don't like the racist abuse that comes with it, and are making the quite reasonable request that the UX be improved.

      • This isn't organizations mostly, it's the players. They have personal accounts, and many of the do enjoy interacting with the fans. They just don't like the racist abuse that comes with it, and are making the quite reasonable request that the UX be improved.

        I completely disagree.

        You can interact with your fans without putting anything anyone at all says up in lights for all to see.

        You can choose to interact with your fans in a manner that does not intentionally promote poor governance.

        It is completely unreasonable to hand everyone a megaphone, an incentive to use it and not expect the blatantly obvious to occur. Once it does crying about someone on the Internet being wrong and hurting your feelings goes way beyond pathetic.

        Responsibility includes taking respo

    • Social Media is a trap for

      ...all of us?

  • Obligatory (Score:3)

    by A10Mechanic ( 1056868 ) on Friday April 30, 2021 @02:35PM (#61333228)
    Did you see that ludicrous display last night? No, it's off social media, innit?

  • Mind-blowingly clueless virtue signaling (Score:3)

    by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Friday April 30, 2021 @02:54PM (#61333288)

    That is like a five year old toddler pouting, to protest volcano incinerations. (Of people who chose to jump into a volcano.)

    Online is by definition an anonymizing medium that makes empathy all but impossible. It has been studied enough: Other people don't feel like people online. Look up Dunbar's number The Internet is that, but hypercharged.
    And on top, everything said is interpreted with the mood of the *reader*. It is inevitable that it becomes a shit-fest. Especially with people who can't even tell reality from belief or form a valid logical argument, and due to our forced labor economy, had no time to ever turn on their brains and gather some wisdom.

    So it is ridiculous nonsense to "stop online abuse".
    It is so broad and ignorant of context anyway, it can mean anything and nothing.

    All you achive, is turn active aggression into passive aggression. Open bullies into bullies in victim's clothing. Nobody will stop being a dick.
    You will just be too stupid to still tell.
    In fact, that is exactly how you ended up with this slacktivist action in the first place

    So listen, you numbnuts: You are not professors of social neuro-psychology. Your ... "job" ... is to ... kick ... a ball! Like a damn troglodyte.
    So why don't you stick to your trade, and keep kicking that ball, and keep drinking heavily and making a fool out of yourselves in interviews?
    And that is not abuse, but a factual description. If you do not like it, here's a hint: Stop doing numbnut things.

    TL;DR: Read the bold parts.

  • My local priest went on strike for six whole days last week!

  • Common people should be having a voice too

Slashdot Top Deals

"Imitation is the sincerest form of television." -- The New Mighty Mouse

Close