“We need to get into the minds of the individuals who are doing it,” Troy Townsend says, discussing rampant racist abuse on social media. “Whether they’re doing it because they want to get a retweet or want to get fame amongst their friends and say that I abused so and so.
“Until we can get into the minds of them and their culture then we’re never going to stop this.”
Townsend could be talking this week, now, today. This is actually February 2014, during a report on Sky Sports News about the spread of abuse on social media platforms. The social media companies refuse interviews. Football’s authorities express their concern. Sound familiar?
Townsend, father of Crystal Palace winger Andros and Kick It Out’s head of development, has probably lost count of the times he has fielded questions about racism on the platforms in the preceding seven years.
Seven years in which English football’s answer has been to announce a boycott lasting three and a half days. Even then, I’m told there were Premier League clubs who baulked at that length of time they have to avoid posting on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram this weekend, that they were forced into it by the widespread adoption of others. Nobody wants to be the club refusing to take part.
Thierry Henry had the right idea. Not a short hiatus. Not a long Bank Holiday weekend. Not telling your social media staff to take a few days off and enjoy the sunshine.
“I will be removing myself from social media until the people in power are able to regulate their platforms with the same vigour and ferocity that they currently do when you infringe copyright,” the former Arsenal striker said two weeks ago.
“Until this changes, I will be disabling my accounts across all social platforms. I’m hoping this happens soon.”
Henry had 2.3 million followers on Twitter, is one of football’s most recognisable names. He knew word would travel far and wide that he was no longer allowing social media companies to use his celebrity to endorse their platforms that profit from spreading hate.
English football’s collective response is a somewhat diluted version. Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey are unlikely to be quaking in their digital boots.
And we have, to a certain degree, been here before. Two years ago, when the Professional Footballers’ Association coordinated the #Enough campaign and scores of players boycotted the platforms for 24 hours. It was backed by high-profile names including Wes Morgan, Troy Deeney, Danny Rose, Wilfried Zaha, Kevin De Bruyne, Eden Hazard, Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, Gareth Bale. Former player David Beckham leant his sizeable following to the initiative.
PFA head of equalities Simone Pound estimated they reached more than 90 million people. Fair play to the PFA for trying to do something – but what did that achieve?
Facebook (also owners of Instagram) reached out and scheduled a meeting. They also held talks with Twitter, in which Morgan, the Leicester City captain, attended to provide the players’ perspective first-hand. Some important social media bods made positive noises and set out intentions.
Twenty-four months later the problem is worse than ever.
So does three and a half days prompt awkward conversations between clubs and their sponsors, who have social media coverage written into their multimillion pound sponsorship contracts?
Until we see those involved in football squirm, until things become uncomfortable, it’s unlikely much will change. Three and a half days… meh. They can make up for that with extra posts later in the week.
It was Sam Allardyce, the West Bromwich Albion manager, who gave the most brutally honest assessment of the situation, saying that if boycott action “meant losing revenue, the money may override that, unfortunately, because a lot of people are in a lot of trouble”.
What if clubs boycotted social media for a month? Or during the summer transfer window, when platforms are on fire with whispers about who is moving where?
In the document sent to all professional players across the country the PFA highlighted the importance of sponsors and brands associated with football playing their part, too. Brands who pay large sums to advertise on these social networks, which in turn use their advanced algorithms to target their products to football fans.
Pressuring the sponsors is the same point that Kick It Out chairman Sanjay Bhandari made in an interview with i last year. “I could just complain about things but I’m much more interested in finding answers and if you’ve got to talk to the people with the power and influence, well, you’ve got to find a way of getting to them,” he said. “And it will be the same dealing with social media companies. They will respond to commerce. We’ve got to find a way to work with those people who provide the funding, to stop them funding hate.”
Will Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and co not posting for 81 hours have the same impact? I’m not so sure.
I don’t want to knock good intentions. It’s brilliant that something is happening.
It sparks conversation and debate. Although I wouldn’t say we have been short of conversation and debate criticising social media companies for their failure to tackle racism and discrimination in recent years.
Football says enough is enough – but is a three-and-a-half-day boycott really long enough?
from Football – inews.co.uk https://ift.tt/2QCYVlY
Post a Comment