I write this at the end of a bank holiday weekend where sports organisations have led a news blackout of the various major social media platforms that have become so important to so many. There was some debate within school as to the wisdom and effectiveness of such a step - after all the IT leviathans which operate Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and the like will barely recognise that such a gesture has been made in one small country, given their global reach and audience of billions. Any action to make things better should be pervasive and enduring, so a protest that has the staying power of just three days is bound to have a limited impact. Life will return to normal on Tuesday and a tokenistic gesture will have merely made everyone who took part feel better rather than making real change more likely. On the other hand this weekend is traditionally one where social media enters the national consciousness like few others. The culmination of the Premiership Season, in particular, guarantees that an absence of engagement by the richest sports clubs in the UK will be noted by millions. Maximum impact and effectiveness with the generations for whom digital media has become the way of trawling through news. What draws the eye better than a gap in the wall paper after all?
The case for change is compelling. The YouTube footage of the discussions between Ian Wright and Alan Shearer to be seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LxpeIULvPA is both disturbing and very, very depressing. It is desperately sad that there are individuals who feel that it is acceptable to launch campaigns of vicious and hateful language towards anyone in society, hiding behind anonymity. Quite what is going on inside such people's heads when they are sat in front of a screen typing such material is beyond understanding. The rule should always be 'don't send anything to anyone that you wouldn't be prepared to say to their face'. All too often that gets forgotten, and 'send', 'post' or 'share' is pressed. Responsibility is shrugged off, almost as if the message then becomes someone else's responsibility. If there is any risk then it's worth taking because repercussions are rare, and the onus is on the victims to take action.
We encounter the same problem in school from time to time. Malicious posting is rare (but not unknown). What is more common is that a 'joke' goes wrong, or over the top, or a conversation takes a wrong turn and becomes offensive, abusive or bullying in tone. The pieces have to then be picked up and put back together - by friends, by parents, by school - and it is always a horrible mess. If only people thought before pressing 'send'...
We do what we can in school. Staff are vigilant, e-safety is a priority and we do a lot to educate our boys and girls about safe and sensible rules for online working. Parents have a big part to play too in ensuring that their offspring are engaging online in a suitable way, and limiting use where this becomes sensible and necessary. But ultimately, with regard to posting online content there is a heavy responsibility that lies with the Californians too. They get massive benefits and monumental profit levels from operating their platforms - they should not be able to abrogate responsibility for online safety while doing so. If this weekend's boycott inches us just a little further towards a greater level of accountability then it must be worth the effort.
SDS
Â
