One thing Facebook got right was to tie accounts to the individual. These ubiquitous social networks offer too much access and prominence to attention seekers, where using shocking or deplorable ways to get noticed is par of the course. The algorithms used clearly don't deal with these issues, they amplify them. Anything that increases engagement gets promoted. 'The Social Dilemma' is a great documentary on this and other social media issues.

So a better solution to this hit and run behaviour than the victims (public figures with verified identities) of such abuse being the ones criticised and told to leave, is to ensure a level playing field with others having to back up their conduct in an equally 'verified' way. If someone's then still happy enough to openly reel off slurs at others they will at least be aware that it may come at a social cost to them and is something they personally have to own. Most of these inadequates would never have the guts to spew out slurs to a footballer's face in real life, and so that reality should be replicated online, rather than the current free for all.

Edited by BlueJay (10 Feb 2021 12.42am)

What are these deeper issues?

There will never be a time when attention seekers and other assorted dimwits will use a situation to do what they always do. The more you publicise it the more they will do it. That is not so much a racism issue as a human behavioural trait.
Some people, for various reasons, feel the need to attack others. This says more about them than the victims and I don't know that our society will ever be without the small percentage who have these inclinations.
The media must know this but still push their little campaign for purely self serving reasons, also probably knowing full well that they are part of the problem.

Some platforms definitely have a structure that makes people more accountable than others. These inadequates do this largely as a 'look at me' and because they see zero consequence as result of it. Someone wouldn't knock on your door and start reeling off slurs like they do with the online equivalent. If that's how they want to conduct themselves then as you say tie their contributions more closely to their identity so that they have to own it and these keyboard warrior will often think twice. Where they do not then it is at least clear that they have no intention of operating within understood norms. I'm okay with people saying whatever they want, but they get to stand by their words and the people around them get to draw their own conclusions about this conduct. That would stamp out the majority of it.

Some wouldn't like the above, but ironically that's where the dream of making these social media behemoths a public utility leads to. An ever increasing government role and direct link to the individual.

Edited by BlueJay (10 Feb 2021 6.37pm)

How do you possibly read those comments and come to that conclusion? Listen to the interview as well.

He's tired and fed up of still having to do it because nothing is changing and no one is going further to enact change.

Wilf has been vocal in his support of stopping social media users being able to hide behind anonymous accounts. Imagine the uproar on here if Twitter and Facebook made every user start having to validate their identity before they used it.

The last sentence sums up how many people feel. The difference being that when he says it people acknowledge the point.