Gareth Bale willing to boycott social media over abuse of footballers

[sebo_sek]

I think there's something between your two extreme positions of "accept abuse" or "don't use social media".

We wouldn't say that to anyone, say, who's abused at work or at a match or walking their dog, so I don't see why it's any different for social media.

The underlying problem isn't social media, it's people, but social media platforms are enablers and need to do far more than they are. If they can't properly monitor and regulate non-abusive use of their own platforms, the platforms shouldn't exist in the first place.

This is a very idealistic point of view.

The middle ground is to simply ignore the idiots and enjoy SM knowing that they exist. You will never erradicate all of the abusers. Forget it. TBH you'd be lucky to pluck out 5%.
Moreover, the global online platforms are interested in these conflicts continuing as they generate traffic. And the more heated and widespread the response, the better for them.
Hence, to truly get rid of these people, JUST IGNORE THEM.
If the players wanted to make a difference, they would do just that. Them boycotting SM just means that the abusers won. End of story.

 

[Gassin's finest]

He said. On social media.

This site is moderated though (sort of )

 

[Johnny J]

This is a very idealistic point of view.

The middle ground is to simply ignore the idiots and enjoy SM knowing that they exist. You will never erradicate all of the abusers. Forget it. TBH you'd be lucky to pluck out 5%.
Moreover, the global online platforms are interested in these conflicts continuing as they generate traffic. And the more heated and widespread the response, the better for them.
Hence, to truly get rid of these people, JUST IGNORE THEM.
If the players wanted to make a difference, they would do just that. Them boycotting SM just means that the abusers won. End of story.

You say I'm idealistic, but I'm actually proposing practical solutions.

I'd say, on the other hand, that it's very idealistic and simplistic to suggest that people who receive, say, racial abuse on social media can or should simply ignore it.

The "middle ground" is not letting people abuse whoever they like on social media with impunity. That's essentially letting the abusers "win", to adopt your terminology.

If any one person chooses to leave social media, that choice is theirs, but the options shouldn't be either (1) accept abuse or (2) leave social media.

How about, instead, the solution doesn't come from those being subject to abuse, but from those with the resources and power and ethical obligation to do something about it?

Again: we should not tolerate intolerance. That signals the end of a tolerant society.

 

[sebo_sek]

You say I'm idealistic, but I'm actually proposing practical solutions.

I'd say, on the other hand, that it's very idealistic and simplistic to suggest that people who receive, say, racial abuse on social media can or should simply ignore it.

The "middle ground" is not letting people abuse whoever they like on social media with impunity. That's essentially letting the abusers "win", to adopt your terminology.

If any one person chooses to leave social media, that choice is theirs, but the options shouldn't be either (1) accept abuse or (2) leave social media.

How about, instead, the solution doesn't come from those being subject to abuse, but from those with the resources and power and ethical obligation to do something about it?

Again: we should not tolerate intolerance. That signals the end of a tolerant society.

Talking about ethical obligations with regards to people and organisations that operate solely on breaking them is questionable. As I said , those regulatons (racism etc) are already in place and yet are not enforced enough, because they simply can't be - too much volume to assess. So introducing new regulations will not change a thing, as the core problem remains - too much volume. One user could spend an entire day spewing venom on others. Now multiply that by 500 million - each of those posts needs to be assessed as otherwise legal action could be undertaken as to why an account had been suspended.

Then, there is the question of what tolerance is and what actually constitutes abuse and what lies within the boundries of personal opinion. That takes us back to my original worry over censorship.
I've been called a bigot, racist, homophobe etc, even on here, simply for presenting a conservative point of view with regard to immigration, abortion or a traditional family model. I never said anything remotely racist - but it was INTERPRETED as such. And presto, someone is labelled a racist and there is NOTHING they can do about it.

So I decided to ignore it and move on. I mean I know what I am, and what I'm not. It really is that simple.

 

[rupsmith]

A someone layman question. Who defines “tolerance”? Is it a definition that is subject to interpretation based on the times we live in? Or is it anything that doesn’t/may not result in physical violence?

 

[rupsmith]

A very interesting side note