Australian Rugby / RA

[wamberal99]

There is a lot of potential downside for the sport here

There always is. Maybe RA needs to start buying lottery tickets.

 

[Strewthcobber]

There always is. Maybe RA needs to start buying lottery tickets.

True true.

I reckon they are currently doing the only thing they realistically can do, which is bleed as much money out of the GMT time zone rugby ecosystem as they can every 12 years for Lions tours and X years for WC, and just desperately struggle on in between

 

[wamberal99]

True true.

I reckon they are currently doing the only thing they realistically can do, which is bleed as much money out of the GMT time zone rugby ecosystem as they can every 12 years for Lions tours and X years for WC, and just desperately struggle on in between

We survived as an amateur code. If the worst happens, we will still have club rugby to watch.

 

[Adam84]

Interesting, RA have signed up Social Protect to help with abuse in social media, which extends to players' social media accounts. I can certainly see the reason behind it, but the threshold for censorship of what is considered an 'abusive' term would be interesting to see.

Rugby Australia has inked a deal with Social Protect, which has developed technology that automatically detects then deletes abusive comments in real time before they reach the comments sections. The app is now at the disposal of every player in the rugby community, from grassroots to elite levels.

It comes off the back of an internal two-month trial across 10 of RA’s social media accounts, including the Wallabies, Wallaroos and Rugby Sevens, in which the software deleted more than 1500 abusive comments.

“The proportion that the female athletes receive across the board is much higher on average – that can go as high as 350 per cent more abuse than their male peers,” Britten said.

‘Racism, misogyny, generalised hatred’: How AI is helping rugby stamp out online abuse

New technology which deletes abusive social media comments in real time has been adopted by Rugby Australia and made available to players at all levels of the game.

www.smh.com.au

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

AI bot v AI bot at the end of it.

I get the overall reason but also am personally at point of thinking on this topic that we need to spend a lot of time ensuring players have support around them as well as education and reinforcement of messaging that it's all BS online and avoid it. It will never go away and deleting stuff doesn't end it. It's never good to see hate and there's certainly no place for racist garbage but I'll wait to see what is considered too far in terms of criticism.

I do lean on the saying Just because you're offended, doesn't mean your'e right.

 

[Braveheart81]

but the threshold for censorship.

I don't think censorship is really the right word for it. It's comments on their own social media feeds. I don't think there is any transparency owed that anyone has a particular right to say whatever they want on those channels.

If someone wants to complain about Rugby Australia or one of the players/teams then they can post it on their own page/social media account.

I get the overall reason but also am personally at point of thinking on this topic that we need to spend a lot of time ensuring players have support around them as well as education and reinforcement of messaging that it's all BS online and avoid it. It will never go away and deleting stuff doesn't end it. It's never good to see hate and there's certainly no place for racist garbage but I'll wait to see what is considered too far in terms of criticism.

I do lean on the saying Just because you're offended, doesn't mean your'e right.

It's never going to stop, but likewise it's not reasonable to tell players to just avoid it. Like most regular people they use social media and shouldn't have to stay away from it because there is going to be abuse there.

I don't think you can ever be wrong in deleting replies to your own posts. No one has a specific right that they have to be able to reply to you and those comments are then visible to everyone.

 

[Adam84]

I don't think censorship is really the right word for it. It's comments on their own social media feeds. I don't think there is any transparency owed that anyone has a particular right to say whatever they want on those channels.

If someone wants to complain about Rugby Australia or one of the players/teams then they can post it on their own page/social media account.

Perhaps in the context of how it's intended use in the article 'censorship' isn't the write term given the negative connotations that people associate with the it.. Still, though, moderation of opinions by removing comments, even on one's own social media posts, can certainly be considered a form of censorship, just not an unjustified or authoritarian one.

My interest is more piqued in the application of this software and its use by other parties, potentially beyond those who are using it for ethical and moral reasons. Also, i do question the privacy concerns of an external party's AI' API integration into a player's own social media account.

 

[Derpus]

I don't think censorship is really the right word for it. It's comments on their own social media feeds. I don't think there is any transparency owed that anyone has a particular right to say whatever they want on those channels.

If someone wants to complain about Rugby Australia or one of the players/teams then they can post it on their own page/social media account.



It's never going to stop, but likewise it's not reasonable to tell players to just avoid it. Like most regular people they use social media and shouldn't have to stay away from it because there is going to be abuse there.

I don't think you can ever be wrong in deleting replies to your own posts. No one has a specific right that they have to be able to reply to you and those comments are then visible to everyone.

Its very censorship-like when the private forum takes on the role of the public square as with twitter etc. There is no easy division between private/public anymore.

Arguably, censorship is even more effective in that kind of space where you have a large number of people treating it as if it were a place of public discourse even though it isn't. Easy to manipulate a large number of people.

 

[Merrow]

It’s not censorship to delete violent and sexualised comments which is pretty much what the AI tool is designed for. Go and take a look at high profile female athletes social media profiles and look at some of the shit they have to put up with. No one should have to see that sort of shit.

 

[Derpus]

Well, it is. But it's fine too I guess. In this case anyway.

 

[Adam84]

It’s not censorship to delete violent and sexualised comments which is pretty much what the AI tool is designed for. Go and take a look at high profile female athletes social media profiles and look at some of the shit they have to put up with. No one should have to see that sort of shit.

Not saying it’s bad to delete those specific examples.

But I’d be interested to know where the line is drawn on ethics/morals about what terms and comments are to be deleted and what aren’t, especially in relation to the “1500 comments” that were removed off the Wallabies/Wallaroos/Sevens accounts in the past 2 months alone. I suspect the marker extends beyond violent and sexualised…

 

[Strewthcobber]

Not saying it’s bad to delete those specific examples.

But I’d be interested to know where the line is drawn on ethics/morals about what terms and comments are to be deleted and what aren’t, especially in relation to the “1500 comments” that were removed off the Wallabies/Wallaroos/Sevens accounts in the past 2 months alone. I suspect the marker extends beyond violent and sexualised…

I imagine the line will be consistent will RA's social media policy, which is public.

Anything on Wallabies/Wallaroos/Sevens accounts would need to be consistent with that policy, including members of the public's comments which are displayed.

 

[Strewthcobber]

To give an example, if I wrote a comment on a Wallaby Instagram post politely criticizing the ref's performance, it should be removed by RA from that site under their policy