48 Hour Twitter Boycott?

[Baron99]

There's been a call for a 48 hour boycott of Twitter & Instagram in light of them failing to quickly take down the racist, anti-Semitic postings of the rapper Wiley. 

 

https://news.sky.com/story/twitter-users-stage-48-hour-walkout-over-response-to-wileys-antisemitic-tweets-12037111

 

Are you boycotting Twitter & Instagram? 

 

Before anyone asks, I'm not personally on or ever have held a Twitter or Instagram account. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Baron99

[tinfoilhat]

I've bailed out of Twitter for over a month now, too much drama, for want of a better word. Never done Instagram. 

[melthebell]

both crap places anyway, i dont use em (although i do have accounts)

[AKAMD]

Never used them, never will!

[Be My Bubble]

If you see bad driving are you advocating  boycotting road use?

Boycotting social media will make you feel better  but won't change anything.

Learning how to deal with what's appropriate and not appropriate has become more of a necessary life skill.

 

 

[alchresearch]

Twitter is only bad if you use it that way.

 

Personally I like to follow decent people and their posts often brighten up my day - especially people like Richard Coles and Gyles Brandreth.  They don't post or retweet hate.

[L00b]

Not boycotting Twitter, it's goldmine for ECJ case law research, and better for professional/semi-professional link ups and updates than LinkedIn.

 

Don't have Instagram, not bothered about it.

 

Been boycotting Facebook for years now.

[Halibut]

1 hour ago, Be My Bubble said:

 

Boycotting social media will make you feel better  but won't change anything.

 

 

 

Except when it does.

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, Be My Bubble said:

If you see bad driving are you advocating  boycotting road use?

Boycotting social media will make you feel better  but won't change anything.

Learning how to deal with what's appropriate and not appropriate has become more of a necessary life skill.

 

 

I would agree with that. 

 

There are lots of things, organisations and people on Twitter that I certainly don't like so I don't follow.  If I do see something which I clearly disagree with or I'm offended by I have the choice to either ignore it, block it or challenge it.

 

Whilst it is absolutely right that extreme acts of hate speech, abuse or violence should of course be removed, what we are starting to see examples of is anyone in any circumstance who is offended demanding its removal and focusing blame on the social media organisations themselves instead of the actual perpetrator of the alleged offensive remark.  That in turn starts a backlash  just as extreme with people defending the perpetrator.   Round and round it goes creating an ever more toxic environment with both polar opposite opinionators shouting over each other to be the loudest.

 

I'm not always convinced sometimes either side has a moral high ground and that is why, through the benefit of freedom of speech, someone should have a right to say something and another person should have a right to be offended by it.

 

I don't know whether this particular case falls into that category as I have not been following it - however I am always slightly sceptical of these blanket demands for something to be removed by not only people who are offended by a remark/video/show/speech but also,  thanks to our hysterical media outlets, lots of people who've never even seen it jumping on the bandwagon.  

 

I always find sweeping 'one size fits all' decision-making can be a slippery slope.   It's something that YouTube has done recently with sweeping changes to their monetisation rules and algorithm in a OTT knee jerk reaction to a US law change to protect minors from adult content, language or violence.  That basically risked every single video which may have adult themes or swearing or 18 + computer games or even certain music aimed for an adult audience potentially being blanket demonetised or censored.   

 

Same thing could very easily happen with our social media wear where is thought out blanket changes could reply and information that people actually want or need to know could be swept up and removed just for containing certain trigger words or content irrelevant of any context. 

[tinfoilhat]

22 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

I would agree with that. 

 

There are lots of things, organisations and people on Twitter that I certainly don't like so I don't follow.  If I do see something which I clearly disagree with or I'm offended by I have the choice to either ignore it, block it or challenge it.

 

Whilst it is absolutely right that extreme acts of hate speech, abuse or violence should of course be removed, what we are starting to see examples of is anyone in any circumstance who is offended demanding its removal and focusing blame on the social media organisations themselves instead of the actual perpetrator of the alleged offensive remark.  That in turn starts a backlash  just as extreme with people defending the perpetrator.   Round and round it goes creating an ever more toxic environment with both polar opposite opinionators shouting over each other to be the loudest.

 

I'm not always convinced sometimes either side has a moral high ground and that is why, through the benefit of freedom of speech, someone should have a right to say something and another person should have a right to be offended by it.

 

I don't know whether this particular case falls into that category as I have not been following it - however I am always slightly sceptical of these blanket demands for something to be removed by not only people who are offended by a remark/video/show/speech but also,  thanks to our hysterical media outlets, lots of people who've never even seen it jumping on the bandwagon.  

 

I always find sweeping 'one size fits all' decision-making can be a slippery slope.   It's something that YouTube has done recently with sweeping changes to their monetisation rules and algorithm in a OTT knee jerk reaction to a US law change to protect minors from adult content, language or violence.  That basically risked every single video which may have adult themes or swearing or 18 + computer games or even certain music aimed for an adult audience potentially being blanket demonetised or censored.   

 

Same thing could very easily happen with our social media wear where is thought out blanket changes could reply and information that people actually want or need to know could be swept up and removed just for containing certain trigger words or content irrelevant of any context. 

I'm often convinced one side has the moral high ground - I'm not sure Mr Wiley has one at all - whether they choose to use correctly is another issue.

 

And Twitter has a problem. You can often get away with any old nonsense if you have millions of followers. Donald trump being one example!