Sack Pendles (and De Goey!)

[David]

[K]

[David]

^ I just feel like social media is a big part of most of our lives nowadays, particularly twenty-somethings – so the idea that players shouldn't be permitted that seems kind of puritanical and one that places yet another restriction on their highly regulated lives.

Of course some of them might well voluntarily decide that Twitter is a toxic environment and delete their accounts – personally, I mostly avoid using it – but that's surely not for the club, the AFL or us as supporters to decide for them.

Where I might have some sympathy for your view is a recognition of the fact that employees in various industries – perhaps including the AFL – are increasingly expected to have a public social media presence and use it to promote the 'brand', which is possibly what leads Pendlebury and others to feel like they need to post banal stuff like this (or maybe it really is the most interesting thing he could think to write). I find that a pretty off-putting concept, but if that's part of the package deal of being an AFL footballer now perhaps they could be encouraged to have a public 'work' social media account and a private 'personal' social media account. Or, much more preferably, we could leave the PR to the people in the marketing department and let players do as they please online and otherwise focus on what they're good at: kicking a football.

[K]

^^^
I should clarify that when I say "if I had my way" I more precisely mean something like "in a better world, according to what I regard as better". I don't think anyone (certainly not Bevo, if it was indeed Bevo who expressed those sentiments) was contemplating enforcing a ban or restriction, as they do with alcohol. But now that I think of it, there are bans on phone use, etc. around game time because of gambling & match fixing. A club could, with the support of its (players') leadership group, trial a social media blackout for the whole of game day and the night before...

While it's not for the club and supporters to decide for the players what to do, they can perhaps encourage them as much as possible to avoid such hazards.

There are many people in the public spotlight who have official webpages, twitter accounts, etc., whose posts, tweets, etc. are entirely made up by people they employ. Their 'real' accounts are set to be entirely private, to be shared with their friends and family only.

[David]

^ I'm not really sure I see the distinction between banning it and doing what you go on to suggest ('trialling' a social media blackout with the support of the 'leadership group'). Indeed, these days, a lot of the puritanical rules (like no drinking during the season) are developed and enforced by the leadership group. Perhaps AFL players could do themselves a favour and get a hold of Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent – could be an enlightening read!

[Mugwump]

[K]

[David]

To be honest it’s not strictly relevant, apart from his idea that authoritarian forces use manipulation tactics (such as mainstream media outlets, the focus of his book) to convince people to buy into their own subjugation. To me, the “leadership group” have always seemed like the private-school prefects of AFL clubs – tasked with enforcing the rules that they feel like they came up with independently, when in reality they’re just acting as middle-men for the higher-ups.

[K]

"Puppets" is the word you want, David. You believe that those in the player leadership group are puppets. But aren't they largely determined by the players' votes, these days? I think so, although it's unclear how much say the "authoritarian forces" have in deciding whether to overrule the players' wishes as expressed by their votes.

[Mugwump]

^ sorry to disappoint, K. Whilst I don’t like Chomsky’s views on the whole, I think he’s a formidable individual who argues his case respectfully and well, and I don’t think he is a virtue signaller. Free societies need people like him. And he thoroughly deserved his Nobel for linguistics. His demolition of the behaviourist theory of language acquisition is a masterpiece of clear thinking and forensic argument. It’s one of the only things I read in a four-year psychology degree which made me feel I had learned something worthwhile.

All societies manufacture consent as a matter of necessity, and we should not imagine that it is an evil in itself. The question is whether the consent that is manufactured prevents the discovery of truth.

[thesoretoothsayer]

Isn't Chomsky on the outer with the left because he continues to believe in free, sorry, I mean "hate" speech?

[David]

Not any left that I’m familiar with. Whether all of them have heard of him is another question (ah, the youf of today...).

[K]

Assuming for the moment that's true, I guess how I feel about it depends on what exactly "in the interest of the club as a business" means. Players already can be charged by the AFL with "bringing the game into disrepute". Presumably, there are similar clauses in players' contracts with their clubs.

[HAL]

Try to be less subjective.

[David]

^ Indeed! Another example of authoritarianism justified as a ‘choice’ (as if anyone has the freedom not to sign such a contract).