Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

'Other Boro stuff'


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Uwe said:

But not intended to show those absolute f**ktards who’s boss it’s intended to force the platform owners to take responsibility and create accountability for what you post. I’m sure a couple of clever algorithms or even proper registration process would catch and eliminate 90% of it. 
Also it was no great surprise to see how quickly the. EPL, FA and government can bring their full force to bear when their profits are under threat but when it comes to taking action in fighting online hate they’re just content with a shoulder patch, banner etc as they continue to kick the  can down the street.... Muppets 🤬
 

But I'm not sure it would even accomplish that much. At least not over just a few days.

Although I appreciate there is a fair amount of message traffic between clubs and supporters, it still accounts for a tiny fraction of overall usage.

A permanent (or indefinite) boycott until the platforms could demonstrate improved targeting and punishment of offenders, might get them to sit up and take notice. But a few days would barely register as a drop in traffic.

I hope I'm wrong...but I ain't gonna hold my breath.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 15.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Great quote from Kevin Blackwell in the Athletic today 🤣🤣🤣

I can't imagine that game getting approved by Hasbro...

It's my birthday today, meant to be my 30th but I've refused to allow that in current circumstances of not being able to celebrate it. I usually get my age on the back of one of my shirts so I re

Posted Images

29 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/boro-urge-teesside-football-family-to-join-boycott

The message acknowledges it might not change anything. But then beyond the nuclear option, there's not a lot we can do as a club or as fans.

I think the platforms do their best with the resources they have to manage the accounts using it but any computer-literate person could create a new anonymous Twitter account in less than a minute. So its their own policies that mean that aspect of it is failing. I'm also pretty sure fines and prison sentences would come if platforms like Twitter actually had information to pass onto authorities in the case of violating its terms of service. As it is, they don't because they don't request it at all from users. It relies on users divulging too much of their identity, essentially.

I think a balance needs to be kept for people's privacy, though. There are plenty who use Twitter who won't want to divulge their information for good reason, too. Introducing a layer of authenticity behind that might make things difficult for them. It'd be interesting to see the drop-off of bots if Twitter had to enforce an owner onto them, though.

Personally I think creating a social media accounts should be like creating an online bank account (or similarly serious) which requires you to provide traceable and verifiable information, beyond a simple email address.

The flip side (which I also appreciate) is that the more info you have to provide, the more personal data these companies hold...which as we have seen can be vulnerable to hacking, or deliberate misuse.

I get why people can be reluctant to divulge personal information. Even the most secure systems are not completely invulnerable to cyber attacks (or rogue personnel leaking / selling data).

But the platforms would have to be subject to regular independent security audits and demonstrate a satisfactory level of precautions. They could also be hit with hefty fines or be made to pay compensation to users if their data is stolen / misused. I'm also sure arrangements could be made with law enforcement to hand data over in a secure manner, in the event someone had to be prosecuted.

It might drive the nasties underground onto the dark web...but I say let the scumbags keep likeminded company and allow decent folk to use mainstream platforms without having to read their vile garbage.

There is no perfect solution, but I think a lot more could be done, than is being done right now.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AnglianRed said:

But I'm not sure it would even accomplish that much. At least not over just a few days.

Although I appreciate there is a fair amount of message traffic between clubs and supporters, it still accounts for a tiny fraction of overall usage.

A permanent (or indefinite) boycott until the platforms could demonstrate improved targeting and punishment of offenders, might get them to sit up and take notice. But a few days would barely register as a drop in traffic.

I hope I'm wrong...but I ain't gonna hold my breath.

 

I’m also dubious about the impact it will have on the platforms revenue or professional image. They did ban Trump with his almost 89 Million follows. Can’t imagine the combined premier league/ EFL are much more than that

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AnglianRed said:

Personally I think creating a social media accounts should be like creating an online bank account (or similarly serious) which requires you to provide traceable and verifiable information, beyond a simple email address.

The flip side (which I also appreciate) is that the more info you have to provide, the more personal data these companies hold...which as we have seen can be vulnerable to hacking, or deliberate misuse.

I get why people can be reluctant to divulge personal information. Even the most secure systems are not completely invulnerable to cyber attacks (or rogue personnel leaking / selling data).

But the platforms would have to be subject to regular independent security audits and demonstrate a satisfactory level of precautions. They could also be hit with hefty fines or be made to pay compensation to users if their data is stolen / misused. I'm also sure arrangements could be made with law enforcement to hand data over in a secure manner, in the event someone had to be prosecuted.

It might drive the nasties underground onto the dark web...but I say let the scumbags keep likeminded company and allow decent folk to use mainstream platforms without having to read their vile garbage.

There is no perfect solution, but I think a lot more could be done, than is being done right now.

It's not just what holding that data could do in the event of a cyber attack. It's also about who it's limiting from accessing it. What document would a person need to sign up for a Twitter account? What if a person can't get access to that kind of document? What if, say, a government intentionally made it harder to get such a document because it was aware of the effect its having on them on a social media platform? We can argue until we're blue in the face about our government in our country but that's not the same the world over.

But yeah, back to cyber attacks and well, the value in doing them goes up quite a bit if the company is storing identifiable information in the millions. Was just reading this BBC article and someone made a good point:

Quote

In some parts of the world, they pointed out, anonymity was vital for people wanting to express their feelings about their government - or talk about their sexuality.

And that was true at home as well as abroad, tech start-up Aplisay founder @robinjpickering said.

"Lets not kid ourselves that this only applies in places outside our borders," he wrote.

"Even here, openness about sexuality, publicly disagreeing with an employer, or escaping an abusing partner are all circumstances where privacy is needed to avoid harm."

You're absolutely right, there is no perfect solution. It is genuinely a hard problem to solve that doesn't have overwhelmingly good results one way or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Uwe said:

But not intended to show those absolute f**ktards who’s boss it’s intended to force the platform owners to take responsibility and create accountability for what you post. I’m sure a couple of clever algorithms or even proper registration process would catch and eliminate 90% of it. 
Also it was no great surprise to see how quickly the. EPL, FA and government can bring their full force to bear when their profits are under threat but when it comes to taking action in fighting online hate they’re just content with a shoulder patch, banner etc as they continue to kick the  can down the street.... Muppets 🤬
 

Twitter have or are going to put a algorithm in that will automatically remove any posts that contains any racist words or emojis. So it is possible for the other platforms to do the same.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ABH said:

Twitter have or are going to put a algorithm in that will automatically remove any posts that contains any racist words or emojis. So it is possible for the other platforms to do the same.

That would certainly cut down the abuse...but again its not a perfect solution.

Most online games have chat forums and they automatically censor racist / homophobic / swear words (although some also give you an option to filter them, or not). Some are even clever enough to identify them if people try to get past the filter by using number or symbols in the words.

Unfortunately algorithms can't identify context. Its perfectly possible to have discussions about racism, homophobia etc. and use certain words relating to the subjects, which could also be interpreted as offensive, so you end up with non-offensive posts being deleted.

I play an online game called Warframe, which uses algorithms in the game itself and the chat forum to censor any words that are deemed offensive and people can even be banned / have their accounts blocked for naming their gear in ways that are considered unacceptable.

Unfortunately they also pick up on words which just happen to contain other words that are considered offensive. Sometimes they get censored / banned for utterly baffling reasons. Most recent example I saw was a player having their account banned for using the name Hivemind. Best explanation anyone could come up with was that the algorithm saw HIV in the name and decided it was offensive.

While we're at it...whats a racist emoji? People of colour have actively been calling for black and brown emojis to better represent them. Monkey, banana and poop emojis can also be used in perfectly harmless ways. So how does the algorithm decide when its racist?

Not saying this can't work. Just concerned about the actual implementation, knowing from previous experience that algorithms don't always get things right.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, wilsoncgp said:

In some parts of the world, they pointed out, anonymity was vital for people wanting to express their feelings about their government - or talk about their sexuality.

My answer to that would be that if people are unfortunate enough to be living under an oppressive regime, where such things are banned, they probably shouldn't be talking about those sort of subjects on an open, unsecure platform.

There are always other ways of expressing yourself. I'd even say if it matters that much to you, you need to be brave enough and risk arrest. Look at the number of Russians protesting against Putin, or holding pride marches, getting beaten up by the police and arrested. The people of Hong Kong protesting against China. The people of Myanmar protesting (and actively fighting) against the military takeover.

I know its easy to sit here in safety and type this, but sometimes you have to be willing to fight for your rights. Otherwise keep your head down and don't attract the government's attention.

 

Edited by AnglianRed
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AnglianRed said:

That would certainly cut down the abuse...but again its not a perfect solution.

Most online games have chat forums and they automatically censor racist / homophobic / swear words (although some also give you an option to filter them, or not). Some are even clever enough to identify them if people try to get past the filter by using number or symbols in the words.

Unfortunately algorithms can't identify context. Its perfectly possible to have discussions about racism, homophobia etc. and use certain words relating to the subjects, which could also be interpreted as offensive, so you end up with non-offensive posts being deleted.

I play an online game called Warframe, which uses algorithms in the game itself and the chat forum to censor any words that are deemed offensive and people can even be banned / have their accounts blocked for naming their gear in ways that are considered unacceptable.

Unfortunately they also pick up on words which just happen to contain other words that are considered offensive. Sometimes they get censored / banned for utterly baffling reasons. Most recent example I saw was a player having their account banned for using the name Hivemind. Best explanation anyone could come up with was that the algorithm saw HIV in the name and decided it was offensive.

While we're at it...whats a racist emoji? People of colour have actively been calling for black and brown emojis to better represent them. Monkey, banana and poop emojis can also be used in perfectly harmless ways. So how does the algorithm decide when its racist?

Not saying this can't work. Just concerned about the actual implementation, knowing from previous experience that algorithms don't always get things right.

 

It was something I heard on the radio but can’t find a article about it so don’t know how it will work. Maybe the posts will be removed until someone assesses them and decides what action is required.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ABH said:

It was something I heard on the radio but can’t find a article about it so don’t know how it will work. Maybe the posts will be removed until someone assesses them and decides what action is required.

Its definitely worth looking at...just needs very careful consideration to try and avoid unwanted / unintended consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Smogzilla said:

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/riverside-to-host-premier-league-cup-final

Boros v Brighton in the Premier League youth cup final on Wednesday at 3pm at the Riverside 

The club are actually livestreaming this one so there's something to watch if you're avoiding work on Wednesday afternoon! 🤣

The fact that's on Wednesday makes me think there's little chance of us seeing many young lads from the start tomorrow. A shame but it would be nice to see them win some silverware.

Although, with it being U17s, who does that actually count as well as Coburn?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Smogzilla said:

https://www.mfc.co.uk/news/riverside-to-host-premier-league-cup-final

Boros v Brighton in the Premier League youth cup final on Wednesday at 3pm at the Riverside 

The club are actually livestreaming this one so there's something to watch if you're avoiding work on Wednesday afternoon! 🤣

Fantastic. I’m working from home on Wednesday. Sneaky half day on the way 😃

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

The fact that's on Wednesday makes me think there's little chance of us seeing many young lads from the start tomorrow. A shame but it would be nice to see them win some silverware.

Although, with it being U17s, who does that actually count as well as Coburn?

My understanding is its for players who were 17 and under when the season started, so Coburn can play. He played with Kavanagh up top in the semi final and bagged a hat trick.

 

I reckon they'll want him to play in this. Cup finals don't come around too often.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...