[Football] Marcus Rashford abuse on social media.

[cunning fergus]

Why do you need a monkey emoji in every day conversation?

Perhaps we should get back to the good old fashioned business of monkey chants and chucking bananas. Water off a duck's back to a millionaire I would think.

You need to ask the mobile companies, why does anyone need any emojis on communicate? I suspect it just helps those with poor English language skills.

Whilst it’s unlikely the likes of Cyrille Regis, Vince Hilliare, Brendon Batson, Paul Canoville, Viv Anderson et al were millionaires when they were playing, these days that the past is a different country in terms of overt racism at football matches.

Conflating the two eras is ridiculous. I was alive then and some of these players were subject to unremitting racism when they played, (including at the Albion). Nonetheless, they succeeded and were broadly loved by the fans of the teams they played for.

That’s because they ignored the abuse and let their football do the talking. Bravo them, take note Mr Rashford.

 

[cunning fergus]

Twitter has no incentive to solve it. Financial penalties for each instance of racial abuse would concentrate their minds a bit.

But, of course. I know very well that it is not that simple. There is no hard and fast legal definition and plenty of grey - you've seen some of the posts (and playing of the victim when called out) on here to know that many hardcore racists will simply tread a very thin line so that they can carry on being racist. However, as much as it would cause an issue for NSC and other online platforms there has to be a consideration to give the Social Media companies an incentive to shut it down and the only things they understand are money.

The answer is most definitely NOT for BAME people to come off Twitter. That's asking for a huge number of people to be bullied away from free speech leaving it a white, racist playground. As [MENTION=35904]A1X[/MENTION] correctly points out it's online apartheid.

On this basis, it appears they will need to ignore it.

 

[rippleman]

Twitter has no incentive to solve it. Financial penalties for each instance of racial abuse would concentrate their minds a bit.

But, of course. I know very well that it is not that simple. There is no hard and fast legal definition and plenty of grey - you've seen some of the posts (and playing of the victim when called out) on here to know that many hardcore racists will simply tread a very thin line so that they can carry on being racist. However, as much as it would cause an issue for NSC and other online platforms there has to be a consideration to give the Social Media companies an incentive to shut it down and the only things they understand are money.

The answer is most definitely NOT for BAME people to come off Twitter. That's asking for a huge number of people to be bullied away from free speech leaving it a white, racist playground. As [MENTION=35904]A1X[/MENTION] correctly points out it's online apartheid.

Thanks for your response.

Really heavy penalties imposed on Twitter for every racist tweet they allow might well be the solution but I see no signs of the government even suggesting such a punitive regime. Then you have that problem of who decides what is racist. Most racism is overt and obvious but then there is a racist "slant"; a casual, more insidious racism.

It's a very difficult issue and there is no easy solution. But if someone close to me was having their mental health impacted because of any kind of online abuse my advice to them would be to "turn it off" because as things are at the moment, there is no viable alternative.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

I could never get my head round why email and social media is not regulated at customer level aided by the use of licences. It would at least enable some form of control over who has access and what they publish. May be a bit “big brother’ and require a fee, but it wouldn’t cause me a problem.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

I could never get my head round why email and social media is not regulated at customer level aided by the use of licences.

Because facebook/twitter etc would rather have fake, inflated user stats to show their shareholders unfortunately.

 

[father_and_son]

Broadly speaking.....

1) Ignore it, sticks and stones innit?
2) Come off social media completely, let your football do your talking?

For football players like Rashford that pursue a public image wider than just football, he will have to accept that by entering political territory he is choosing to expose himself to more abuse.

This board is not immune to abuse football related or otherwise, and it’s moderated. Trying to moderate social media GLOBALLY is a fools errand. Rashford should take succour from being able to run down to the cash point to check his balance in his new lambo or whatever...........that got to make him feel better.

Multi millionaires whining about how bad their life is will never be a good look, regardless of how fashionable it is these days.

People in the public eye take a conscious decision to "promote" themselves on social media... they could have a completely locked down, personal, account to talk to known friends if they wanted.

So, wholeheartedly agree that getting abuse because Utd lost a match *has* to be part and parcel of getting adoration when they win (which is presumably, why "egos" put themselves on very public social media profiles in the first place).

However, there is, and rightly should be, a line where the criticism goes beyond "fair comment". 'You're crap because you lost!' is in a different category to "You're crap because you are black/gay/muslim/etc!" This should always be unacceptable and there should be zero tolerance from the social media companies, internally policed and policed hard. Police that with a zero-tolerance approach (it's reported, it's checked, you are banned for a month) and it would stop very quickly (especially if done in conjunction with making starting a new account or multiple accounts hard - even if that is something simple like a waiting time before activation).

If the blatant stuff is stopped with a significant deterrent, then the borderline stuff would quickly follow because of the fear of falling foul of the same penalties.

However, it goes against the social media business model of putting as many eyes in front of as many adverts as possible. So to motivate the social media companies, legislation is required... they won't change by themselves. Fine/Tax them a £1 for every comment/post reported in the past month and watch them suddenly take it very seriously.

 

[super-seagulls]

However, there is, and rightly should be, a line where the criticism goes beyond "fair comment". 'You're crap because you lost!' is in a different category to "You're crap because you are black/gay/muslim/etc!" This should always be unacceptable and there should be zero tolerance from the social media companies.

Exactly this.
How hard is it?
Call someone shit, because they had a bad game or missed a sitter, but never because of the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation or whether they vote Green or Tory!

 

[father_and_son]

If someone's abusing you online should you just take it? In my opinion the best therapy is to come off and stay off, that's all.

Question then.. how do you stop girls getting raped? Educate girls to stay in the house all the time or educate boys to stop raping girls?

Whilst putting yourself in the firing line is dangerous, the best solution has to be blame the perpetrator, not blame the victim.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Exactly this.
How hard is it?
Call someone shit, because they had a bad game or missed a sitter, but never because of the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation or whether they vote Green or Tory!

Yes, but Marcus Rashford needs to take all that racial abuse and be thankful he's not Vince Hilaire.

 

[Guinness Boy]

You need to ask the mobile companies, why does anyone need any emojis on communicate? I suspect it just helps those with poor English language skills.
.

With the exception of the obvious, everyday use case of a person who can't read or write describing their trip to the Zoo on their state of the art smart phone, what other reason is there to keep monkey emojis? I honestly can't think of one.

 

[cunning fergus]

People in the public eye take a conscious decision to "promote" themselves on social media... they could have a completely locked down, personal, account to talk to known friends if they wanted.

So, wholeheartedly agree that getting abuse because Utd lost a match *has* to be part and parcel of getting adoration when they win (which is presumably, why "egos" put themselves on very public social media profiles in the first place).

However, there is, and rightly should be, a line where the criticism goes beyond "fair comment". 'You're crap because you lost!' is in a different category to "You're crap because you are black/gay/muslim/etc!" This should always be unacceptable and there should be zero tolerance from the social media companies, internally policed and policed hard. Police that with a zero-tolerance approach (it's reported, it's checked, you are banned for a month) and it would stop very quickly (especially if done in conjunction with making starting a new account or multiple accounts hard - even if that is something simple like a waiting time before activation).

If the blatant stuff is stopped with a significant deterrent, then the borderline stuff would quickly follow because of the fear of falling foul of the same penalties.

However, it goes against the social media business model of putting as many eyes in front of as many adverts as possible. So to motivate the social media companies, legislation is required... they won't change by themselves. Fine/Tax them a £1 for every comment/post reported in the past month and watch them suddenly take it very seriously.

Agree with most of this, and fully agree that there is a line between lawful abuse and criminal abuse. Criminal abuse will need to be dealt with by the authorities, if people like Rashford also want to sue perpetrators in the civil courts they can knock themselves out. They will nonetheless have to suck up the lawful abuse.

There is the rub, social media is a global monster, and it should come with a health warning if you are a bit fragile. It will be nigh on impossible for anyone to police it globally, easier in the U.K. but that will not choke off the abuse from other countries.

Again social media need the celebrities/egos like flies need turds, and it’s not really in their commercial interests to regulate their users. If they did maybe users would need to pay, or even put up a deposit that would be lost for an infraction.

If Twitter did that how long before a free one came about..........so, if you stay on, make sure you get thick skin rapid, or simply come off the thing.

 

[Clive Walker]

Sticks and stones innit.

What else do you expect from one of our posters recently banned for racism?

think it comes down to abusing someone because they played rubbish and abusing someone because of the colour of their skin. What is uncalled for and the other is just simply racist. 99% of the population get that!

 

[Clive Walker]

Sticks and stones innit.

What else do you expect from one of our posters recently banned for racism?

Im intrigued by this and I swear I'm not being a clever pk about it, genuine question.......

The vast majority of comments on this thread are suggesting that people on twitter that carry out such acts should have been identified prior, been unable to post (due to algorithms) and faced lifetime bans if they slip through the net.

Now I know the first two are complicated. However, it sounds like the user you refer to has received a ban for racism but is now back in action after a suspension. Isn't it time the policy was reviewed and made into a lifetime ban for such things as racism, homophobia etc?

 

[Live by the sea]

Abuse based on colour or religion shouldn’t happen full stop .

BLM has suffered some backlash because of the publicity over the type of some of the people that run it also fortunately in this country it is rare for anyone black to be killed by a policeman , in fact black on black killings mainly from gangs are by far the biggest killer certainly in England . More needs to be done about this issue to really see progress .

That of course doesn’t excuse in any way at all , abuse sent on social media - I am merely saying people getting shot and stabbed to death should surely take priority when it comes to police investigations.

 

[super-seagulls]

Im intrigued by this and I swear I'm not being a clever pk about it, genuine question.......

The vast majority of comments on this thread are suggesting that people on twitter that carry out such acts should have been identified prior, been unable to post (due to algorithms) and faced lifetime bans if they slip through the net.

Now I know the first two are complicated. However, it sounds like the user you refer to has received a ban for racism but is now back in action after a suspension. Isn't it time the policy was reviewed and made into a lifetime ban for such things as racism, homophobia etc?

Yep

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

BLM has suffered some backlash because of the publicity over the type of some of the people that run it also fortunately in this country it is rare for anyone black to be killed by a policeman , in fact black on black killings mainly from gangs are by far the biggest killer certainly in England . More needs to be done about this issue to really see progress .

Did you just make all this up?

According to the ONS, the highest group of homicide victims 64% identified themselves as white ethnicity. 67% of convicted murderers were white.

 

[Live by the sea]

I was talking about the biggest killer of black people is from other black people , usually gangs .

 

[carlzeiss]

Did you just make all this up?

According to the ONS, the highest group of homicide victims 64% identified themselves as white ethnicity. 67% of convicted murderers were white.

Therefor 33% of convicted murderers come from 13% of the population

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Therefor 33% of convicted murderers come from 13% of the population

and

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

and

What he said
Regards
DF