There were some real bad ones directed at Todd Goldstein the other day under the name P I Staker.
No guarantees it was a Pies fan, but…you know Pies fans.
2 Likes
maybe for you, but thats not how real life situations work. you can oppose something without saying anything
at the end of the day, the victims of racial abuse are the important people, not what we think.
the “naming and shaming” thing doesn’t work in regards to racism imo, if you take away the attentiom they want, it gives them nothing
Hmmm.
Given what has happened to Eddie, I’d argue if he comes out and publicly puts it down, that serves as guidance as to how to some of those impacted want it handled.
Maybe there is some merit in giving it no airtime. But it can’t be free of consequence, and currently, consequence only seems to come following publicity.
2 Likes
It’s twitter / facebook keyboard warriors
I wouldn’t give it it any media.
but you know the media love clicks and negative stories and ability to give their opinion on the matter.
Ball should really be in twitter/ facebook court to deal with this rubbish once flagged.
stop ability to recreate accounts etc from IP address.
3 Likes
I was under the impression that both sets of comments came from the same account. Which was also the douche canoe’s business account. It may well be the type of response the racist piece of ■■■■ expected but that in no way means that being silent about it is a better option.
1 Like
Disagree. Being silent about allows them to live under the delusion that they’re opinions represent the majority of people and let’s them think they can think and say that ■■■■ and expect to be protected by other peoples silence. ■■■■ that. Should we not talk about sexual abuse because we’re just as likely to completely wipe that out as we are racism.
2 Likes
I agree with wob tbh. Ban them, but give it no publicity. These flogs want to be martyrs. A silent banning will be the worst outcome for them and not publicly reacting will be the best response to actually deter the behaviour imo.
Any sort of public shaming just plays into their hands.
1 Like
No that’s a bit different. These are trolls who do something online specifically to elicit public outrage and get a response out of the masses for their own entertainment. Talking about it is the response they won’t and won’t deter these sick ■■■■■ from doing it.
Just banning them from attending, closing membership account and removing posts is the way to go imo. Don’t give them oxygen.
1 Like
Maybe you don’t see some of the stuff that gets said by people naming people who have committed sexual assault against them. It’s honestly worse. And yes a large number are trolls, but there are people who do not see it as trolling, they see it as a validation of their beliefs that the victim deserves it.
You’d have to remove online discourse or at the very least prevent it being anonymous to make a dent in not giving it oxygen. And not giving it oxygen is also another way of saying the victim should just deal with it.
I’m not sure I agree with that. Removing stuff and throwing support and being transperant with the approach you are taking to the subjects of the online abuse should make it pretty clear you aren’t just telling them to suck it up. I just don’t know if going public every time it happens acts as any deterrent. However that’s just my uneducated view. Id like to think there have been studies into this which supports the approach clubs currently take.
I am all for removing social media completely.
1 Like
IF this happened on the player’s instagram accounts, i suggest they move to private settings.
1 Like
I honestly don’t get why we’re still doing the “name and shame” and “this has to stop.”
The barrier of entry to a social media account is exactly 0.
The bottom 0.1% of braindead idiots you can imagine (most of us probably don’t even know someone that dumb/backwards) is approximately 25,000 Australians. Social media is essentially having anyone that has any sort of fame, as accessible as having their contact details on the front page of the white pages, but the white pages was free, easy to use, and accessible to everyone. Didn’t people go “unlisted” even in the 90s with landlines?
Which of the above statements is the easiest to change? Raising the IQ of the dumbest people in our society? Making it hard to be anonymous on the internet? Or changing the access issue and how we treat it?
When you gain any sort of notoriety - close your ■■■■■■■ DMs. There. I fixed it.
To be honest it’s almost getting cringeworthy. In 10 years there will be people still screenshotting and calling this out.
Personally I don’t know why anybody would want anyone they don’t know viewing their photos and being able to message them without some form of approval or consent.
Public access to ones online social media has never seemed prudent in any way, and it’s never been something I have done, but that’s just me.
1 Like
Agreed
You can not report the transgression but report the hell out of the punishment.
How about that?
And….■■■■■■■, yaco.
Do you have to have the worst hot take ever on every single subject?
the more followers they have on social media the more endorsements they might get, like Zaka with adidas etc.
there are benefits there. building their brand.
but yeh if can’t hack the negative feedback / private messages turn access to messaging off or better to keep profile private to actual family and friends you know.
If they’re using social media for marketing purposes, then get your agent to manage it. Have your own personal page for your friends.
1 Like
they’ve made it an art form
I absolutely agree it’s not a deterrent for every person that engages in it, but I don’t think every person who engages in it is just after 5minutes of infamy. Like everything it’ll be a spectrum but when there is no context available about the person and their beliefs, it’s incredibly difficult for me personally to give it the benefit of the doubt.