Social Media boycott

All EFL, premier league and others clubs, players and management will boycott social media for 4 days from Friday 30th April in protest over abuse.

F*** ‘em! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Pointless. Trolls are trolls, not necessarily football orientated. They’ll just move on to another media platform to spit their sad and pathetic vitriol.

(* I’ll be giving Mumsnet a go!)


I’m not sure what football can do to get rid of them from social media but this just seems like another empty gesture by football to make it look like they’re doing something without actually doing much.

These idiots will still pick up their phone and still post abuse. Players will still pick up their phone and still read abuse.

At a time when there will be people out there who have so little to do, football and their social media accounts is their escapism, to take that away at the moment is just harming the wrong people.

1 Like

A whole 4 days off social media!

Wow!!! They really mean business.


It’s just a bunch of overpaid (Walsall excepted of course) footballers saying “look at me everybody”, so they may as well keep them closed.

1 Like

Whoever does the abusing will just come back even more abusive and harsher with it after not being able to do it,to me it’s a pointless exercise,if players want to stop being abused they should come off all social media themselves for good.

It makes no sense if the players don’t want to see the abuse don’t read it .

I don’t think they should be forced to come off social media cause some braindead idiot abuses people cause their skin colour different. Also I don’t agree with political statements in football. This taking a knee and doing the Soviet Union hand fist is ridiculous. They should get more behind kick it out and show racism the red card and keep everything else out of football.

If they really meant it they’d leave for good or until the social media companies do something significant to combat it.

Pathetic response.

I’m suggesting if they can’t cope with the abuse they should come off it sad as that is and I agree they shouldn’t have to but I’m just saying if they can’t cope come off it.

Or just go on private, that way only their friends or people they choose to accept will see what they put. That’s what I’d do.

Obviously though, the social media companies should make you have some form of ID to create an account so they know your name etc.

1 Like

Don’t agree, mate. If another user on UTS was sending you abuse every time you logged in why should you stop using the site? Surely that’s just letting them win. You’d report it, they’d be banned.

Also, a lot of footballers (Sawyers a great example) use their social accounts and big followings to promote their foundations, community projects, charities etc. Why should those people lose out on essential support and exposure because of some bigoted keyboard warrior?

Flip side is that most ‘celebrities’ are using social media to endorse products they sell or get paid to plug, which likely makes them more reluctant to step away. But to be fair, if that’s their way of making money they should be able to do it without abuse, surely.

Issue with social media is there’s very little in the way of deterrent. Harsher legislation and punishment from governments and the social media companies would make a difference.

Ultimately, if all Twitter and Facebook’s major advertisers did a four day blackout these issues would sorted out pretty quickly. Football clubs doing the same is a nice gesture but won’t change a thing.


Mumsnet is the absolute worst for hate and vitriol, forget 4chan and what have you!

1 Like

Agree with you but sometimes in life people can’t take the abuse and need to come off social media I bet it’s happening more and more,sad thing is the real fans who like to get an insight into the lives of the celebrities suffer then because the said celebrity has come off the platform through being abused.

It’s a real mess and again I agree that harsher punishment is needed me personally getting abuse online wouldn’t phase me because I don’t give a ■■■■ but that’s not always the case is it? I’m saying if it’s affecting them that much come off it especially if it’s making them depressed or possibly suicidal in extreme cases that’s all my stance is.


■■■■. How on earth am I going to fill the time?

Freedom of thought should never be limited, but freedom of expression must have some limits. That’s the 21st century, so keyboard warriors have to be curbed. Probably this initiative won’t do much, but maybe it will change something a bit.

1 Like

NZ has digital communication legislation. Cuts through waiting for Zuckerberg’s minions to do anything other than censor nipple pics.

Is iFollow a social media site? :thinking:

1 Like

You attempting to defend anonymous online abuse?

I’d add the standard comedy ■■■■ you you ■■■■■■■ ■■■■ sentence, but UTS actually monitors that. Not perfectly, but enough that nobody gets death threats.