For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1844419
Fellsteruk wrote:Delete ya social accounts, did a few years back and I never looked back.



Apart from the account on the Flyer Forum, presumably - you realise this is social media too?

G
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1844422
Genghis the Engineer wrote:
Fellsteruk wrote:Delete ya social accounts, did a few years back and I never looked back.



... Flyer Forum, presumably ... this is social media ...?




That's moot some days.
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1844423
I like social media, I use it. But, I concluded a long time ago that you MUST have personal rules for your use of it, and stick to them - otherwise you'll simply go mad.

Facebook I have friends, family, hobbies - and absolutely no current colleagues.

LinkedIn is basically a self-updating address book, with the odd anouncement of something important.

Twitter is mainly work-related announcements and discussions, and I avoid getting into spats, politics, confrontations as far as I can. I also avoid it having much to do with my non-work interests.

I don't do Instagram, TikTok, etc. Nothing generally against them, but the above are as much as I need in my existence, and perhaps more than I should have. I looked at Parler and Nebu2, and just backed away slowly.

Flyer, PPL/IR forum and Pprune scratch an itch to talk aviation with likeminded folks. The latter increasingly rarely.

And I keep my head above water. But those are only my rules. Other people have different rules that suit them. The people who have no rules are destined for madness, in my opinion.

Regarding the present "boycott" I find it very odd, as it seems to consist of people whose modus operandi is virtue signalling on social media, virtual signalling, by not being on social media. Ah well, if it makes them happy - I feel no more need to engage with it than I do with people agonising about Boris' wallpaper on Twitter: note it's going on, move past, don't make eye contact.

G
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1844433
The trouble with all of this is the playing field is far from being level.

If a straight, white, male carnivore calls a gay vegan of mixed overseas origin a ****, he with be branded any combination of racist homophobe that supports animal cruelty by the vocal audience, even if the reason is unrelated.

Flip the roles and "SWM" gets left to fend for himself.
User avatar
By kanga
#1844445
Sooty25 wrote:The trouble with all of this is the playing field is far from being level.

If a straight, white, male carnivore calls a gay vegan of mixed overseas origin ..

Flip the roles and "SWM" gets left to fend for himself.


really ? I get unsolicited posts on FB, usually to do with military history, a subject on other Postings on which I've occasionally made factual but I hope untendentious Comments, which is presumably why I receive them. As far as I've seen, the balance of abusive Comments, frequently unrelated to the original posting, seems fairly 'balanced' (ie, equally abusive) between opposing 'Camps', whatever the topic :?

[which is one reason why I've never made an original Posting :wink: ]
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1844447
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:
In a civilised society it is accepted that people are not discriminated against the 7 protected characteristics:

Image

That has nothing to do with wokeness or personal preference or getting their own house in order - it's the law (and common decency)

But nothing that is being talked about here is discrimination - so nothing to do with the law.

What is being talked about is the interface between free speech and abuse ( "hate speech" ).
These seem to get confused with discrimination - they are different.

If you stop someone coming into your pub because they are a priest - that is discrimination. If you have a spirited conversation with them once they are in the pub, as you have a diametrically opposed view on something, that is free speech. If you start accusing them of being a paedophile because they are a priest, that is abuse / hate speech. If you punch him in the face because he is a priest, that is a hate crime.

Haters are going to hate - if they don't hate based on a protected characteristic, they'll hate based on something else.

There are people who like to abuse the social media abuse processes. I know lots of church Facebook pages and videos have been systematically reported as abusive when all that contain are event details. I assume similar happens with other groups. It can take weeks to appeal.
By Spooky
#1844456
AndyR wrote:If people ignored (or blocked) the trolls on social media it would be a far more pleasant place.

Though I will admit, after two tries, I have given up on Twitter. Nasty place.


Nasty place? It’s an utter cesspit. I joined up a few years back and deleted my account a week later. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a vile user group :?

Facebook can be bad (especially during politics season) but it’s easy to avoid the nonsense.
By Colonel Panic
#1844459
AndyR wrote:Though I will admit, after two tries, I have given up on Twitter. Nasty place.

Spooky wrote:Nasty place? It’s an utter cesspit

I have heard this before, but I am genuinely surprised. I don't do FaceBook, Instagram or WhatsApp (spot the connection), but I do drop in on Twitter most days, and find it most informative and tranquil. Maybe that is as a result of who & what I follow (mainly local organisations) & certainly not any chavball type outfits.

I rarely post on it, unless I want to raise an issue with a business that is otherwise failing to help me through "normal" channels. But I just can't see where or why it is regarded as a cesspit.

(Going back to the OP, it seems to me that banning undesirables is never really going to work; as always it is a matter of educating them instead.)
Mike Tango, JAFO liked this
User avatar
By Genghis the Engineer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1844469
I think that Twitter is very direct. If you are generally constructive and polite in what you post, that is what you get back.

If you are controversial, people tend to respond in kind. Ditto humorous (there are some fantastic humorous twitter feeds, first amongst must be the wonderful RAF_Luton).

Politicians and business leaders on the other hand - it's just best not to read the replies to anything they post. It is generally full of point scoring, vitriol, nasty bot responses and irrelevance - completely irrespective of their party or line of work.

G
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1844575
Disproportionate public shaming by group-of-the-week is one of most pernicious effects of social media. It's also allowed those interests to gain over-representation in the public attention - an insidious over valuing of social difference. The Danes can possibly tell us how to do it better.
Spooky liked this
By chevvron
#1845674
JAFO wrote:If only it was possible just to not read the things you don't like. How simple that would be.

One of the reasons these trolls post racist or other comments is to see what reaction they can provoke; do as I do and simply ignore these comments (turn the other cheek) and they will soon get fed up.
By footballers taking the action they have, they've fallen straight into the 'trap' set by the trolls apparently not having the intelligence to think of another course of action.
Years ago I worked with a young lady who foolishly posted her mobile number on facebook; she then moaned about getting 'blank' phone calls at 3am.
When I suggested she try turning her phone off at night, she was amazed any one would think of that.
Then the 'troll' sent her a photo of his privates, so I told her to go straight to her local cop shop (he had not blocked his number) and explain.
They caught him within 3 days.
User avatar
By Rob P
#1845683
I dumped Facebook a while back at the height of Brexit and it was possibly one of my best moves ever.

Twitter was fun back when they allowed POTUS to expose his stupidity, since he's been banned there's only really RAF_Luton and a couple of friends. I am wondering if now we can go online somewhere to read posts "From the desk of Donald J Trump" if his furniture will talk more sense than the man himself.

Instagram is just a photo diary and I tend to post random phone pictures.

I don't enjoy Graham Norton's winsome, capering, gay act and once said so. I was immediately accused of being a homophobe. Does that mean I have been subject to online abuse? Can't say I felt particularly victimised.

Rob P
Flyin'Dutch' liked this