Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Guest Mee-9

Social Media Use/Twitter

By Guest Mee-9, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Guest Mee-9

Guest Mee-9

Posted
Posted

Yesterday there were a few concerning comments made on Twitter by a number of Leicester fans who had been banned from the games for voicing their opinions on social media. (Some saying they’d been banned for 10 matches by the club) 

 

These accounts speculate that there’s a company employed by the club to hunt down people in a sense who voice their opinions about the club, and then issue banning orders. 
 

Some accounts also have now gone to private for their own protection, but this is in a sense a limitation of Freedom Of Speech. What is the difference between this and talking about Leicester down the pub? Debate about football is why we love the game so much.

 

It’s been claimed that these tweets in question were not even offensive towards players, and were general comments about the state of decline.

 

We might also have to worry about Foxestalk too and our opinions on here. Might be time to change a few usernames etc. 

 

Be careful people. 

  • Popular Post
lcfc278

lcfc278

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

I can't believe someone would get banned for 10 games just for tweeting about the state of decline of the club. There must have been some sort of abusive or derogatory comments made to warrant anything like that.

  • Like 7
Stinkenzo

Stinkenzo

Posted
Posted

As much as this is probably bollocks I suppose there's a bit more to it than "posting their opinion". Social media is a vile place with people happy to write whatever shit they like because they know there are no consequences. Bit like fans who think it's okay to throw coins and bottles at players because they paid to get in. 

 

If this is true and they're able to track them down I would think they're better off reporting them to the authorities instead of dishing out stadium bans 

Guest Mee-9

Guest Mee-9

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, lcfc278 said:

I can't believe someone would get banned for 10 games just for tweeting about the state of decline of the club. There must have been some sort of abusive or derogatory comments made to warrant anything like that.

That’s what I was thinking but apparently this wasn’t the case.

 

I’m just reporting what was happening last night amongst the fans. But we have seen a few examples of this in the past few weeks haven’t we.

  • Popular Post
fox_favourite

fox_favourite

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

You always hear phrases such as “just posted my opinion” but when you actually read more into it, it might be more serious. I would take what you read on social media with a pinch of salt. People bend the truth, make stuff up/troll/spread rumours for attention and drama that really isn’t there.

 

I wouldn’t have thought that a club would waste their resources on someone for an opinion. If true, it would be more serious than that. Maybe continuous threatening behaviour, has previous, racial comments something like that, current banning order. Etc… 
 

Also, people need to realise that hiding behind a keyboard and posting inappropriate content to social media doesn’t make you immune. IPs can be easily tracked without much effort. 
 

 

Edited by fox_favourite
  • Like 8
Voll Blau

Voll Blau

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, lcfc278 said:

I can't believe someone would get banned for 10 games just for tweeting about the state of decline of the club. There must have been some sort of abusive or derogatory comments made to warrant anything like that.

One example I've heard about did include an extremely indirect reference to a member of staff, but it was so vague that you wouldn't be able to prove it was aimed at that person if the club acted on the presumption of innocence. LCFC ban first and close the case though, with no chance for those accused to defend themselves.

 

The point is said tweet was not aimed directly at anyone at the club and no-one involved with the club was tagged. Therefore someone at LCFC (or this alleged paid third party) is on a fishing expedition on social media to find instances of supporter "abuse". In other words, our own club are now paying someone to snoop on us all online.

lcfc278

lcfc278

Posted
Posted
Just now, Mee-9 said:

That’s what I was thinking but apparently this wasn’t the case.

 

I’m just reporting what was happening last night amongst the fans. But we have seen a few examples of this in the past few weeks haven’t we.

What's happened in the past few weeks?

UniFox21

UniFox21

Posted
Posted (edited)

Shouldn't be an issue here, anyone without their name in their user should be fine unless the club requests the email attached to their account, even then shouldn't be an issue

Edited by UniFox21
lcfc278

lcfc278

Posted
Posted
Just now, Voll Blau said:

One example I've heard about did include an extremely indirect reference to a member of staff, but it was so vague that you wouldn't be able to prove it was aimed at that person if the club acted on the presumption of innocence. LCFC ban first and close the case though, with no chance for those accused to defend themselves.

 

The point is said tweet was not aimed directly at anyone at the club and no-one involved with the club was tagged. Therefore someone at LCFC (or this alleged paid third party) is on a fishing expedition on social media to find instances of supporter "abuse". In other words, our own club are now paying someone to snoop on us all online.

The logical part of my head is just like 'nah no chance, they must have said something bad or directed it at someone'. But then the way the club has been on so many issues the last couple of years I don't think even hiring an agency to ban fans with negative opinions would surprise me. If it is somehow true I imagine this agency will be very busy over the next few weeks/months and the KP will be empty next season.

  • Like 1
Voll Blau

Voll Blau

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Has anyone on here been banned by the club? I assume they tell you why you've been banned.

I haven't myself but I know that it's put in the vaguest of terms, along the lines of "alleged breach of terms", to those who do get contacted.

 

It's also always described as an "alleged" offence despite the same letter then making clear that the party involved has been convicted and punished before actually being able to defend themselves! A half-decent lawyer would have a field day with LCFC's disciplinary process.

Unabomber

Unabomber

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Why can no one say or tell us what the tweets say lol

 

Exactly. Can’t really comment or make judgement unless we know what was said.

Voll Blau

Voll Blau

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Why can no one say or tell us what the tweets say lol

 

I'd have thought that's pretty obvious, no? Identifying the "guilty" party and possibly getting them into more trouble with the club.

fox_favourite

fox_favourite

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

One example I've heard about did include an extremely indirect reference to a member of staff, but it was so vague that you wouldn't be able to prove it was aimed at that person if the club acted on the presumption of innocence. LCFC ban first and close the case though, with no chance for those accused to defend themselves.

 

The point is said tweet was not aimed directly at anyone at the club and no-one involved with the club was tagged. Therefore someone at LCFC (or this alleged paid third party) is on a fishing expedition on social media to find instances of supporter "abuse". In other words, our own club are now paying someone to snoop on us all online.

But was the reference inappropriate? Was it threatening in any way? If so, even indirect and not clear that doesn’t make it right. 
 

It may have been indirect to you, but a people at the club may know who it is targeting and that is inappropriate. 

StanSP

StanSP

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I'd have thought that's pretty obvious, no? Identifying the "guilty" party and possibly getting them into more trouble with the club.

I'd have thought the tweets would have gone by now though? 

 

How will it get them into more trouble? 

snoopy87

snoopy87

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I'd have thought that's pretty obvious, no? Identifying the "guilty" party and possibly getting them into more trouble with the club.

I managed to photoshop a dogecoin onto a city shirt when we were getting a new sponsor, I'm fairly certain we can hide the users identity whilst also showing their comment

Edited by snoopy87

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...