Racial Vilification of Harley Bennell

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

7 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Talking about different aspects of the issue there though mate.

I don't think so; they're facets of the same issue. A censure of the culprit at the time would have a sent a strong message to the nuffies to either (better option) reconsider their thinking, or (least worst case) bury it so as not to encourage others.

Maybe then Harley could have kicked his very emotional goal without having some cretin spoil it with a message broadcast around the world.

[deanox 9,662]

8 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Sorry, this is not correct.

If you mean it's only an "issue" (meaning grappling with it) in Western societies, you may be on to something.

But "racism" is rampant around the world, including in Asia, Middle East, Baltic/Salvic countries ... plenty that wouldn't be considered "Western" ... the "not like us" impulse is powerful and universal, and if it's only Western societies that take issue with it, well, more power to them. It's a start.

 

NOTE: on re-reading your original post, I mis-characterised your take. I understand that you see that racism is rampant around the globe.

One aspect that I think is important to note in discussion of racism in different cultures, is that the racism we are confronted with in the "western" world is rooted in european colonialism, which resulted in significant systemic and power related racism. 

In other cultures, the racism we see directed to foreigners (including white people) who have travelled to those countries today is often more about exclusion and xenophobia (fear of others), rather than historical oppression.

Of course this isn't an absolute: minorities within geographical areas such as the Middle East or Asia, are subjected to racism within the bounds of state based oppression, but it isn't the same type of racism we are seeing here with Bennell or other first nations footballers. 

[JTR 2,842]

3 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Chook, while there is no place for racism, which I abhor, already sent a message of support.

Your question could be answered on here where I have been called in the last week, idiot, pig and delusional 

I myself got dragged into it unfortunately through frustration at the lack of action by the mods

Social media and forums like this provide people the opportunity unrestrained to put what they like, behind a cloak of anonymity.

Until there are real consequences it will continue

Somebody in a thread called for supporter insurrection, may be the incorrect use of a word, but if somebody took it as verbatim

^^^ this is all that needed to be said and I don't think many would disagree.

If you'd just left it at that rather than add the preceding comments trying to link or compare your experience here to what has happened to Harley, we wouldn't have another derailed thread.

I know you feel hard done by, but this is not the time and certainly not the thread for it, so please stop.

[binman 41,963]

3 hours ago, praha said:

Organisations would be better served to hire online moderators and community managers to immediately delete and block these profile

Totally agree with this.

And id go further and make it a legislative requirement (I know that is tricky but it easier than making them pay tax as huge company like Facebook can avoid tax but has to operate somewhere). 

Even without legislation it should be an expected part of organisations like Facebook and Twitter's social contract. And they should be called on it.

They might argue it would be difficult to do (ie hire online moderators and community managers to immediately delete and block these profile).

But that of course would be complete rubbish. Facebook and Twitter could both employ an army of moderators if they so choosed. And the cost would be a drop in the ocean of the obscene profits they are hoovering up.

Might also do something to help mitiage against the employment crisis caused by covid 19.

A related area is the furphy of free speech ie people have a right to post abhorrent views on social media platforms. It is bollocks because the principle applies to media.

Facebook and Twitter are not media as such. Dissemenators of media yes, but not media. Users elect to join their club, so to speak. That doesn't give them freedom of speech on that platform. Justv as demonanland doesn't. Facebook  have the right to block anything they so choose.

The real issue is why they dont exercise this right (and the answer is it is clearly not in their interest as the model is based on volume and nothing drives volume more than hate - a fact that trump mercilessly exploits).

Edited July 12, 2020 by binman

[deanox 9,662]

34 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

 

The AFL have really led from the front on this, and are not afraid to make examples of high profile people to make a point. If someone with a high profile, closely connected to the AFL, were (say on broadcast radio) to compare a player or ex-player to a giant ape, for example, then they would come down so hard and fast that ............................ hmm, let me rethink that one.

 

That is the great imponderable.

I had thought for years that individuals that people could admire, like Muhammad Ali, Viv Richards ... Andrew McLeod ... Usain Bolt ... make up your own list ... would help afflicted individuals learn that they can respect people who are "not like them", but unfortunately, I have had to conclude that there is no helping some people. Which is a sad reflection on us as a society. I hope to be proved wrong one day.

 

They have magicked themselves into a time and place where they can hold plenty of power, but they shirk all responsibility. Their recent pitiful rearguard actions are PR moves and in no way represent any move toward accountability, which is the last thing they want. The basic operating principle is greed.

Good post, a couple of thoughts:

1) The AFL, like all big corporations, have a massive marketing department. They have the finger on the pulse of society because it costs them millions of they get it wrong, and unlike political parties they don't have ideology. When organisations like the AFL start taking a cause seriously, you can be sure that public sentiment has shifted that way and it is now the majority position. Until now it has been lipservice, but it seems now the tide has turned. Posts like the one the MFC made today (naming and shaming racists) demonstrate that. 

 

2) Can you think of another social utility that is 100% owned by private companies with zero regulation? Because I can only think of social media platforms.

Social media is this century's version of public spaces, roads, plumbing, sewerage, electricity, telephone lines, media (newspapers, tv broadcasts, radio), internet, etc. But it is the first in which the people have no stake. Perhaps it's time for either strong regulation or a government owned social media platform competitor to provide choice (ie if you are happy to live without certain bells and whistles, you can retain ownership of your own data)?

[Demonland 70,269]

30 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

I don't think so; they're facets of the same issue. A censure of the culprit at the time would have a sent a strong message to the nuffies to either (better option) reconsider their thinking, or (least worst case) bury it so as not to encourage others.

Maybe then Harley could have kicked his very emotional goal without having some cretin spoil it with a message broadcast around the world.

Unfortunately in this case the comment was posted on the AFL Twitter under the video of Harley's goal. The AFL can block a Twitter account from viewing their posts while that account is logged in but they cannot themselves remove the offending post. They can report the post to Twitter but social media companies can be slow to respond and certainly in these cases way to slow.

On Facebook & Instagram the AFL page has a little more control and can delete posts or hide them from view and also ban the offender from their page. The offender and the post can be reported to Facebook but apparently Facebook is even worse with dealing with this and most times you will get a very generic reply saying that it doesn't go against their policies and here are some other things you can do if it offends you. Not very helpful.

The ability to hide posts gives them more control but they have to be vigilant and it can slip through the cracks on a busy footy weekend and most likely someone will take a screenshot and post it elsewhere and it's out there for all to see.

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

I can't believe Twitter can let this kind of language through without waiting for someone to report it. Surely they can set up a program to vet these comments. Youtube banned some youtubers who focused on true crime and history, citing it as disturbing. They then had to fight to get their channels back. Surely Twitter can stamp this kind of rubbish out. 

[Demonland 70,269]

9 minutes ago, Dame Gaga said:

I can't believe Twitter can let this kind of language through without waiting for someone to report it. Surely they can set up a program to vet these comments. Youtube banned some youtubers who focused on true crime and history, citing it as disturbing. They then had to fight to get their channels back. Surely Twitter can stamp this kind of rubbish out. 

We have a profanity filter on Demonland but people still find ways around it.

In this instance used a short form of Aborigine which is derogatory but the sentiment would have been just as offensive if he had used the word Aborigine. Twitter doesn't censor swear words and they certainly don't censor derogatory terms.

I know that pages on Facebook have different level of filters to filter out swear words. I'm not sure how it works for local derogatory terms or even if it includes the word used here.

Having said that users can always use the creative way to get around the filters on those platforms.

If you ever get a warning from mods here about using creative ways to get around the profanity filter just remember that it is there for a reason.

[Demon17 5,060]

5 hours ago, Kiss of Death said:

If that account is an incognito member or supporter

Racial vilification is a crime. Someone get of their [censored] and have the police and or Feds trace the origin via its Meta data to which they have access and publicise the moron on the front of the Herald Sun.

[Rab D Nesbitt 8,114]

I sometimes wonder whether things are actually getting better or worse. The political agendas of two world leaders in particular have given people with xenophobic and homophobic leanings a virtual licence to flaunt their warped and insular views. One (Trump) infamously describing latinos as rapists and murderers from [censored] countries and the other (Boris Johnson) describing black africans as piccaninnies with watermelon smiles. He also described gay men as tank topped bumboys. Yet with all this information already in the public domain they have both been elected into office by the general public. Go figure. 

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

4 minutes ago, Demonland said:

They used a short form of Aborigine which is derogatory but the sentiment would have been just as offensive if he had used the word Aborigine. Twitter doesn't censor swear words and they certainly don't censor derogatory terms.

I know that pages on Facebook have different level of filters to filter out swear words. I'm not sure how it works for local derogatory terms or even if it includes the word used here

Thanks for the reply. I just can't believe they cannot or will not set up a computer program that recognizes certain words(shortened or not) or phrases that are unsavoury and relevant to the culture and country.

[Jaded No More 67,644]

8 minutes ago, Rab D Nesbitt said:

I sometimes wonder whether things are actually getting better or worse. The political agendas of two world leaders in particular have given people with xenophobic and homophobic leanings a virtual licence to flaunt their warped and insular views. One (Trump) infamously describing latinos as rapists and murderers from sh@thole countries and the other (Boris Johnson) describing black africans as piccaninnies with watermelon smiles. He also described gay men as tank topped bumboys. Yet with all this information already in the public domain they have both been elected into office by the general public. Go figure. 

Americans are, for the most part, as dumb as the day is long. They are ignorant and small minded. Their behavior during this pandemic shows you how selfish and narrow thinking they truly are. 
The British have a long history of oppression and a superiority complex they haven’t quite worked out they are no longer entitled to. 
Both countries voted on important matters (presidential elections and Brexit) with a strong racist undertone. Trump won a lot of fans with his stance on Mexicans and immigration as a whole, and many people voted for Brexit “to stop those foreigners taking our jobs”... jobs they don’t want to do, but let’s not worry about that. 
 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Jaded

[praha 11,120]

48 minutes ago, binman said:

Totally agree with this.

And id go further and make it a legislative requirement (I know that is tricky but it easier than making them pay tax as huge company like Facebook can avoid tax but has to operate somewhere). 

Even without legislation it should be an expected part of organisations like Facebook and Twitter's social contract. And they should be called on it.

They might argue it would be difficult to do (ie hire online moderators and community managers to immediately delete and block these profile).

But that of course would be complete rubbish. Facebook and Twitter could both employ an army of moderators if they so choosed. And the cost would be a drop in the ocean of the obscene profits they are hoovering up.

Might also do something to help mitiage against the employment crisis caused by covid 19.

A related area is the furphy of free speech ie people have a right to post abhorrent views on social media platforms. It is bollocks because the principle applies to media.

Facebook and Twitter are not media as such. Dissemenators of media yes, but not media. Users elect to join their club, so to speak. That doesn't give them freedom of speech on that platform. Justv as demonanland doesn't. Facebook  have the right to block anything they so choose.

The real issue is why they dont exercise this right (and the answer is it is clearly not in their interest as the model is based on volume and nothing drives volume more than hate - a fact that trump mercilessly exploits).

interestingly a recent defamation case actually holds organisations to account for comments on their pages. individually it's obviously different but it is a step in the right direction. 

My recommendation is that any organisation that is public facing with public facing employees that are in and scrutinised by the media, everyone has a verified profile (blue tick) with all content moderated and signed off. Players can have their personal profiles, but on private and only for close friends and family. Community and social media specialists are hired exclusively for the moderating and managing of these profiles.

From a branding perspective it is a no brainer but also for the sake of PR, publicity, AND player wellfare it controls the story, the imagery, the message, and the engagement. As a society we still see social media as a "private" thing and thus people and players should have a "right" to engage safely, free from toxicity. It can be approached that way but atm players basically for the most part have free reign, and they are opening themselves and the club to all sorts of trouble, as we have seen recently with these racist posts. In essence the club is liable here because it hasn't fulfilled its obligation to both prepare and train players for this sort of stuff, and basically allows it to happen. Relying on government and social media outlets to protect them from this stuff is futile. The resources are there to take full control and to shield players from this stuff. The approach needs to change.

[Axis of Bob 11,177]

13 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Americans are, for the most part, as dumb as the day is long. They are ignorant and small minded. Their behavior during this pandemic shows you how selfish and narrow thinking they truly are. 
 

Simplifying a country like this is not helpful nor is it in any way an adequate explanation of what has happened. They have issues but it's unfair to label a 300m+ population so broadly, in the same way that you wouldn't say that Australians are, for the most part, as dumb as the day is long because Pauline Hanson is in the senate. It's far more complex.

[Axis of Bob 11,177]

And I'm happy that our club keeps calling out racism. Aside from being the right thing to do, it also shows our players (and opposition players/player managers) that we care about our players and are willing to fight on their side. It certainly doesn't hurt when we want to retain/attract players.

[binman 41,963]

1 hour ago, deanox said:

One aspect that I think is important to note in discussion of racism in different cultures, is that the racism we are confronted with in the "western" world is rooted in european colonialism, which resulted in significant systemic and power related racism. 

In other cultures, the racism we see directed to foreigners (including white people) who have travelled to those countries today is often more about exclusion and xenophobia (fear of others), rather than historical oppression.

Of course this isn't an absolute: minorities within geographical areas such as the Middle East or Asia, are subjected to racism within the bounds of state based oppression, but it isn't the same type of racism we are seeing here with Bennell or other first nations footballers. 

Spot on deanox. It is hard to argue with contention that racism exists every where, in all countries and is part of the human condition and experience. 

But in some respects there are two issues being conflated in this thread. Racism and systemic racism. Inter related issues obviously but not the same thing.

Impossible for someone to 'understand' systemic racism if your whole life and being, and that of your family stretching back centuries has not been poisoned by systemic rascism as it has for African Americans and almost all first nation people's. Sympathise? Maybe. Learn? Yes. Understand? No.

The other important elements of systemic racism is that if you are white in say Australia or America regardless of your age or family history you have directly benefited from, and continue to benefit from systemic racism. Hard to be truly understanding or even empathetic when something has worked to your benefit.

[Axis of Bob 11,177]

Agreed, binman. I think it's very difficult to see how you have benefitted from that when you, like everyone else, go through hard times, good times, challenges to overcome, setbacks in your journey and all sorts of things. You can see your own barriers that you overcome (or didn't) and therefore assume an understanding of what those challenges are for others. It makes it so difficult because the temptation is to say "Well just get over it .... my life has also been hard and I have overcome it." It doesn't invalidate your experience, it just doesn't make it directly applicable to this problem.

Everyone's life is hard, which is why it is so hard to understand the impacts of racism on a person if you aren't part of that group. We just need to keep working to stop racism, wherever we get the chance.

[chookrat 4,205]

6 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Well done Bartlett to get on the front foot so quickly to support Harley.

He also said:  “I am already in discussions and intend to follow up key Federal and Victorian Government Ministers to explore what can be done to strengthen laws to make people accountable and stamp out this abhorrent behaviour".

Shocked that the AFL hasn't already done this on behalf of all clubs and really all sports. 

The police need to charge people who do this sort of thing. The social media platforms need to have a process to verify users identity, perhaps even using a mobile phone account, so that people can be identified and held to account.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

Can I go on radio and say whatever i want, however obnoxious? No, I can't ... there are consequences. TV? No. Newspapers? No.

Somehow the internet has grown up with the idea that you can say anything, without consequence. With few exceptions, that holds. Just look at the sewers of twitter & ****book. Anytime someone says "that isn't healthy for society, why don't we look at that?", along come the shouts of CENSORSHIP!!!

But censorship is really about stopping me saying "XYZ political party is awful", or "all drugs should be FREE", etc. It's repressive, not protective.

Why should the internet be exempt from basic standards of decency and ethical behaviour? What we're really talking about is not censorship, but regulation to save people from themselves, and other people from their recklessness: the online equivalent of shouting "FIRE!" in a cinema.

Of course there is a cost, and Twitter and ****book don't want to pay the $$$$ that would require actual human moderators. They'd rather tread water with "algorithms" which superficially treat the problem, until the next inevitable outrage.

Allowing people to bring out their worst, in the most ill-disciplined way, is an assault on society, and the ****books have a lot to answer for.

Edited July 12, 2020 by Mazer Rackham

[binman 41,963]

The sad reality is the social media companies profit from hate speech. So why would they change? Profit trumps everything 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

2 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

I don't think so; they're facets of the same issue. A censure of the culprit at the time would have a sent a strong message to the nuffies to either (better option) reconsider their thinking, or (least worst case) bury it so as not to encourage others.

Maybe then Harley could have kicked his very emotional goal without having some cretin spoil it with a message broadcast around the world.

I completely agree the AFL was weak in it's action (or inaction) for that specific instance.

These are different aspects of the same issue though. One is about direct racist speech, the other about the determination of responsibility of publication platforms. I don't see how Eddie being punished for his racist comment has any influence at all on how facebook moderates it's platform. They're separate things.

 

[Cards13 9,117]

2 hours ago, Demonland said:

Unfortunately in this case the comment was posted on the AFL Twitter under the video of Harley's goal. The AFL can block a Twitter account from viewing their posts while that account is logged in but they cannot themselves remove the offending post. They can report the post to Twitter but social media companies can be slow to respond and certainly in these cases way to slow.

On Facebook & Instagram the AFL page has a little more control and can delete posts or hide them from view and also ban the offender from their page. The offender and the post can be reported to Facebook but apparently Facebook is even worse with dealing with this and most times you will get a very generic reply saying that it doesn't go against their policies and here are some other things you can do if it offends you. Not very helpful.

The ability to hide posts gives them more control but they have to be vigilant and it can slip through the cracks on a busy footy weekend and most likely someone will take a screenshot and post it elsewhere and it's out there for all to see.

Maybe the AFL should ban twitter/platforms that take no accountability for all staff, players, clubs etc?

I know that is not ever going to happen but if they want to take a stand then truely do so.. people will find another way to communicate the game outside of one platform. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

24 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Can I go on radio and say whatever i want, however obnoxious? No, I can't ... there are consequences. TV? No. Newspapers? No.

Somehow the internet has grown up with the idea that you can say anything, without consequence. With few exceptions, that holds. Just look at the sewers of twitter & ****book. Anytime someone says "that isn't healthy for society, why don't we look at that?", along come the shouts of CENSORSHIP!!!

But censorship is really about stopping me saying "XYZ political party is awful", or "all drugs should be FREE", etc. It's repressive, not protective.

Why should the internet be exempt from basic standards of decency and ethical behaviour? What we're really talking about is not censorship, but regulation to save people from themselves, and other people from their recklessness: the online equivalent of shouting "FIRE!" in a cinema.

Of course there is a cost, and Twitter and ****book don't want to pay the $$$$ that would require actual human moderators. They'd rather tread water with "algorithms" which superficially treat the problem, until the next inevitable outrage.

Allowing people to bring out their worst, in the most ill-disciplined way, is an assault on society, and the ****books have a lot to answer for.

 

14 minutes ago, binman said:

The sad reality is the social media companies profit from hate speech. So why would they change? Profit trumps everything 

Agree with both posts here, and binman you've really nailed one of the core issues in that there is no differentiation on social media between positive and negative engagement. That is one challenge for facebook especially where harmful, misleading or intolerant content ends up reaching a wide audience due to it having negative reactions which are given as much value as positive.

Facebook is at an intriguing stage. It's very much going through an internal revolt due it's lack of ethical moderation, and not just of it's organic content.

And Mazer I very much agree with your sentiment around the lack of understanding between 'free speech' and 'free of consequence speech'.

 

[rjay 24,601]

3 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

Unfortunately Australia likes  to think that there is no racism, which is wrong

I actually think this is an over generalisation.

There are many who see their actions as not racist who don't actually understand the hurt they cause. Whether that's racist or just plain insensitive it really needs to stop.

There are trolls like this one with Bennell who are low life fools...

As you can see on here it's pretty unanimous that we don't condone that behaviour.

...and then of course there are the out and out racists that exist in this country.

Only a fool would think we don't have these people in our society and that racism doesn't exist.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

1 hour ago, praha said:

My recommendation is that any organisation that is public facing with public facing employees that are in and scrutinised by the media, everyone has a verified profile (blue tick) with all content moderated and signed off. Players can have their personal profiles, but on private and only for close friends and family. Community and social media specialists are hired exclusively for the moderating and managing of these profiles.

Can't agree with this premise mate. It destroys the whole purpose of social media, which is to be immediate and direct. To have what is essentially phony corporate identities representing your brand is the quickest way to lose all your engagement, closely followed by any connection to your company/product/personality/footy club.

The players control their brands, it's a huge part of what the AFLPA has worked for over the last decade, and their individual brands are considered separate from the club even though they work in tandem.

  

1 hour ago, praha said:

Relying on government and social media outlets to protect them from this stuff is futile.

I don't think anyone has asked for this or remotely expects it. The push is for accountability and the determination of who that sits with from a moderation perspective but also from a publication perspective.

It's impossible to stop harmful things being posted, what is being asked for is purely and simply accountability.