Sports in Europe have decided to switch off their social media engagements for four days starting May 1 in protest against the rampant vilification on basis of race, gender and religion. The level of "abuse" came to such a pass that the organisers, participants and all other stake-holders have decided to join hands demanding action by authorities and owners.
It is important to note how social media becomes such a huge influence among the populace when there is so much poison being bandied about in gay abandon!
Each web-page / website makes money from the traffic it generates, leading to the host platform (Twitter, Facebook, et al.) placing advertisements and generating revenue, a small part of which is indeed shared by the those that created the content in the first place.
Makes perfect sense, especially since the content creators have a right to be compensated. But that is where the line needs to be drawn.
Social media is dependent completely on the traffic / eye-balls, which are counted as "hits" or "likes" as the case may be. And what better way to generate traffic than a bit of disagreement, which more often than not leads to outright venom being spewed by both sides leaving bystanders aghast but the platform owners laughing all the way to the bank!
It is here that European sport has decided to draw the line. Players, officials, broadcasters and organisers have for once all come together to put their foot down on what they have rightly labelled as "downright abuse on the basis of skin colour, gender, race or place of birth".
Why does it happen? Social media provides a certain anonymity to the participants, making them less vulnerable to retaliation, if ever there is one barring being suspended / taken off the platform for a specified period of time. Beyond that there is nothing being done or even attempted to be done to place any kind of check on the venom spewed right across the internet.
Tough to justify that for the owners of social media platforms who have expressed their helplessness in curbing the obvious use or misuse of the tool for free speech.
But why is it important for those at the helm to remain on social media despite the poison arrows? The answer is very simple ... its about information dissemination and fan engagement which allows them to prove to those putting in the money about the volume and level of traffic. Indeed this has become rather for sports to have a presence on social media in order to keep their fans satisfied and feeling engaged and empowered.
But with the poison crossing bearable limits, action was demanded from the platform owners but when none was forthcoming, the limited boycott was the only option. The four-day absence is to prove how much of traffic these sports alone can command and owners better take note and devise ways to curb infringements before it's too late.
Social media owners so far have been sitting smug in their ivory towers hiding behind the belief that they have no control over what transpires on their platform, barring the odd intervention when they "feel" limits have been breached. But tolerance levels may vary and its about time there was a standard policy against direct abuse.
Quite unlike the traditional media (newspapers and television) the internet has grown mostly unbridled, But time has come to tame the monster before it drowns in its own vomit.
No comments:
Post a Comment