This weekend Football decided it has had enough. In light of players being subject to repeated and intensive abuse on social media, it decided to host a weekend blackout to signal something must change. I’ve taken a look into the issue, take a look at what Facebook does already for accounts running political adverts, and highlighted the many problems both social media and legislators need to balance for any new measures to actually work.
The blackout took place between 3pm on Friday 30 April and 23:59pm on Monday 3 May. It took all participating clubs, players and journalists off all social media platforms. This means fans won’t receive updates, news or content through social media for a full round of fixtures.
The blackout came after unacceptable and repeated social media abuse aimed at players and officials both during and after games. Players would return to the dressing room and - win, lose or draw - be met with a barrage of abusive comments. The abuse is particularly acute for players who are BAME (Black, Asian or other Minority Ethnicity), and some - though not many - so-called fans have been banned or prosecuted for comments which had a clear racial motivation.
The problem Twitter faces is simple. Twitter is a cess pit. And it is far too easy for a user, banned from an account, to sign up to a new Outlook email address and jump in again with a new account. The process takes no longer than ten minutes. The lack of controls, ID-checks and verification is sorely lacking in a way other platforms just aren’t.
To highlight the point, dating apps like Tinder and Bumble have different approaches to verification. Tinder links an account to a Facebook account and phone number and, should a user be banned, any future accounts linked to that account or number also banned. There is no appeals process. Bumble asks users to upload a picture of themselves in a specific pose to prove it is them (as the picture is compared against those on the profile). Neither is perfect, but both is far stronger than Twitter.
The relationship between dating app users and general social media users is of course very different. Twitter (and Facebook) would argue your quest for a relationship is a deeply personal one. But this is no different to posting holiday pictures or very personal hot takes. And, regardless of the content on individual accounts, the lack of protection for other users from abuse (including prosecutable counts of racism) is the driving factor here.
So how do Twitter and Facebook ensure all its users are safe from abuse? The key clearly is some form of ID system which ensures someone can't just go straight from being banned, to setting up a second account (or a third, fourth or fifth...) and keep on posting abuse.
Strangely enough, Facebook already has a model for how to deliver this - and it relates to how it approves users to run ads. In a previous job, I had to run political ads on both Twitter and Facebook. It is here when Facebook has implemented much stricter set of rules to comply with electoral law over.
To run political ads on Facebook, one has to provide a copy of a passport (or photo ID), and provide a postal address. Facebook then sends a letter through the post to that address. The letter features a code, and users can run ads once that code is submitted on Facebook. What this does is link an account to a very specific person. A person with a passport number and a person with an address. If Facebook extended this to all accounts, and Twitter took a similar approach, it would be hugely difficult for users to get around.
I must point that this is not a solution I would implement as it is far too much faff, and both Twitter and Facebook pride themselves on simplicity. A model for a very specific need (complying with electoral law) for a very small number of accounts (those managing political campaigns) is not going to be suitable for your aunt who is only on there to connect with her Bridge club. But what this does is show that Facebook has a way to absolutely verify who is behind the account - it just chooses not to do this for the very vast majority of people on its platform.
To run ads on Twitter, meanwhile, one has to just put in a credit card and pay. Job done.
But with any mode of ID check, whichever and whatever is used, there are problems which must be highlighted - and these issues must be satisfied if any model is brought in:
1. Anonymous accounts.
There is no issue with anonymous accounts. Many people use them because they are not comfortable using their name. Others are victims of domestic violence, harassment or stalking so are not safe to be identified online. To that respect, anonymous accounts must be allowed.
I must stress, the model above would not have any identifiable information public. It is simply stored in a back file. But this sets up a second problem.
2. Data protection
Twitter and Facebook are big beasts to hackers. These platforms have a huge target on their head and storing far more personal information only increases the risk. Even if only one vulnerable user's account is hacked (rather than the whole platform), that still puts a user at risk if the information remains accessible to the account holder.
3. Not everyone has photo ID
In the UK a drivers licence costs £34 (if applied for online) and a passport costs £75.50 (if applied for online). A new model must not price people out of online life. A workaround could be simply needing two forms of proof of address, but then this leads to another problem.
4. Young people - particularly teenagers - may not have any form of ID
Is it fair to push younger people off platforms they have been using for years? If they are pushed off, the likelihood is they will migrate to less strict platforms and find themselves at risk in another forum which does not take abuse seriously.
5. Using the internet is becoming a human right
The last year has set into minds just how important the internet is for keeping in touch with loved ones. But this is not a new phenomenon. One cannot apply for benefits, find work, or access a wide range of government services without access to the internet. These services are also cheaper online (the drivers licence and passport costs rise to £43 and £84 respectively if applied for by post) which means the country is moving down the path of penalising non-users.
But on a more basic level, is it right to require people to hand over a load of sensitive information to access a website where you're mostly posting hot takes and holiday photos? Or for your aunt to connect with the Bridge club? Striking that balance between protecting people’s liberties - though it must be stressed nobody holds the liberty to abuse others - and holding enough identifiable information to ban abusers must be done right.
6. What is a social media site?
This runs to the heart of the issue of why abusive accounts are such a problem. Both Twitter and Facebook see themselves as platforms - where individuals access to post content for which the individual is responsible for. Others see Twitter and Facebook as publishers - where, like a newspaper, the sites themselves are responsible for the content on their websites.
Both sites have exercised huge lobbying exercises to try and ensure there is no legal change to make them responsible. Both know this is a real issue, as both hire a large number of ‘administrators’ whose job it is to review complaints and content flagged as inappropriate (though they are understaffed and have no way near enough capacity to process all complaints). By doing this, both are clearly taking more responsibility for the content on their platforms, but are not taking absolute responsibility for it. Does that need to change?
In sum, the one thing that cannot come out of this blackout is a simple revert to the status quo. Sport is a powerful industry and it is waking up to an issue which people in other industries have been saying for years - one just needs to look at the replies to any politician to see round the clock abuse for even the most mild comments (an issue which is particularly present for women and those who are BAME).
The issue is about identifying abusers and ensuring they cannot come back from a ban. This is not easy. But there is no absolutely safe and perfect solution to social media abuse, and the above issues will need to be addressed for any model to strike the right balance.
Comments