Prince William is taking part in the ‘social media boycott’ to protest racism in football


It’s truly a wonder that there is *still* so much racism in football. Especially given that Prince William has repeatedly declared himself “bored” with racism in football. Especially given William’s personal vow to “stamp out” racist abuse… against footballers. Especially given that he personally demanded that racist abuse in football “must stop now.” Isn’t that how it usually works for Baldemort? He announces his keenness – or in this case, his lack of keenness for racism in football – and then the problem is immediately solved, by William, and everything goes back to being perfect? Why is poor Work-Shy Willy being forced to confront this vital, narrow issue so many times, in so many tone-deaf ways? Why are people constantly expecting him to speak about racism on a larger scale when he’s made it perfectly clear that he only cares about how racism affects footballers?? So, on Friday, William posted this to Twitter (and IG):

Too bad he’s off social media this weekend, I could have told him that he should have put a comma after FA. As for the social media boycott, William didn’t come up with it (of course not). The boycott began within the British footballer community in response to the rampant abuse many players of color face online. While I think social media blackouts are an interesting tool in the activism arsenal, for William specifically, it reads as very vague, ineffectual and, frankly, quite boring.

While social media platforms could and should do a hell of a lot more to shut down hate speech online, the fact is that William is just doing this for football alone. He’s perfectly fine with racist abuse against anyone other than footballers. He’s shown that time and time again. This issue also perfectly encapsulates William’s problems as a “leader.” First off, he’s following, not leading. Secondly, everything he’s done on this very narrow cause has been entirely ineffectual. Thirdly, he’s showing that he’s not actually interested in solving the problem in any kind of substantial way. He just wants credit for “being against racism in football” and oh look there he goes, he’s already bored with it.

Also: Ordinarily, it’s not even like William or the Kensington Palace team spends much time on social media on the weekends anyway. They had already spent all of last week celebrating the Keen Anniversary on social media, and then whoops, KP was supposed to release Princess Charlotte’s birthday portrait this weekend. So instead of KP releasing it on their own social media, they just sent the portrait out to the British media, and journalists posted the photo on THEIR social media. Kind of defeats the purpose of a social media boycott, eh? (And please don’t talk about Charlotte’s portrait in this post. We’ll talk about it tomorrow. I don’t have the patience to watch to a 300-comment thread/argument about who the child looks like. It’s a nice, pleasant weekend, let’s keep it that way.)

william NHS call

william NHS call2

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

120 Responses to “Prince William is taking part in the ‘social media boycott’ to protest racism in football”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. VS says:

    Is W dumb or uninterested? or maybe both? what has he specifically done to address this issue?

    Question for the group: if you had to think about a solution to address social media abuse, what would you do?

    My approach has been anonymity should be removed….if people were posting under their true identity, the abuse would massively go down.

    I know there are those in abusive regimes who need that anonymity; we can accommodate those. What do you all think?

    • Brittany says:

      I remember hearing Harry and Meghan had lobbied social media companies to do more to enforce rules about anti-racism. Facebook notoriously looks the other way a LOT. The companies have total control over their own platforms. They just choose not to care in some cases.

      Remember Twitter refused to shut down Trump even though he broke their supposed rules. Then Biden won, and suddenly Jack decides to ban Trump (although all his children are still thriving on there?). It was very obvious they only cared about power and protecting their bottom line.

      • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

        Don’t forget all those closed door meetings with Jack and F***erberg (sorry, I *hate* that POS with a passion! He more than most contributed to the horror show we’ve had to live through). You KNOW there was quite a bit of “quid pro quo” going on btwn them and TFG for allowing it all to go on w/out being cracked down on.

    • equality says:

      People aren’t usually anonymous on Facebook and still manage to post some really nasty things. One problem, especially with Twitter, is that if you are a representative of media or a blue check, you can get away with saying and instigating all sorts of vile comments. If they were more willing to suspend blue check accounts it would be helpful. As Twitter proved with Trump, they aren’t willing to do this until something really bad happens IRL.

      • VS says:

        My point was if you are not anonymous and you post nasty stuffs, you can be banned forever….right now with anonymity you can just go and create a new account and the whole cycle starts over….

        We need laws to also been able to sue those who bullied others online….that’s the next steps. yes we have free speech but that protects against the government!

        I just think something needs to be done….it is getting out of hands and those SM have become toxic

      • equality says:

        That would be helpful to hopefully keep people from having several accounts to spread hate also.

      • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

        While I agree with the accountability, what’s to stop them from using a passive relative’s phone to resign to another account?

        I know we all said Parler was stupid for making them give DL (and yeah, *really* stupid people giving up their SS # to sign up), but it sure made it easy for the FBI to identify some of the more radical ones’ SM posts.

        But where do we draw the line with privacy/gov’t intrusion/access to free speech? NOT hate speech…but then *who* becomes the arbiter?

    • Chartreuse says:

      Given the BM supported by and cooperated by Willileaks bullied his SIL out of the country, does anyone think he’s interested?

      He’s both dumb and uninterested.

      • kelleybelle says:

        Hypocrite of the Century is William. While he wonders how dark Archie will be, he lends his name to this? He disgusts me. If he can’t hear and see himself, yes, he is dumb and uninterested and far worse than that. He is ridiculous.

    • Snuffles says:

      In South Korea they have very strict laws. Some news sites have required posters to use their real identity while commenting on their articles.

      People have legal recourse if they feel like they are being abused or defamed online. They gather evidence online, use the poster’s IP address to track them down and charge them with defamation.

      In KPop they take this stuff deadly seriously because their reputation is EVERYTHING to them. Companies will hunt people down that repeatedly post abuse and spread false rumors and sue them. Fans often join in on identifying and reporting people.

      There are serious consequences for online abuse. I hope other countries follow suit.

      • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

        Isn’t it a lot harder to track an IP address with so many people using VPNs now?

      • VS says:

        @(The OG) Jan90067 — I like the idea but I agree with you; it has become harder to track an IP address

    • KatianaD says:

      VS I get what you mean but that’s what China does and they do it nefariously so i can’t not see that as wrong.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      @VS, while anonymity can appear bad from several points of view I am of the belief that it is also quite good too. on this site for instance, the posters are by and large anonymous and thoughtful posters from countries all over the world offering intelligent discourse on the topics that interest them. For my job, we have been asked to please refrain from fighting/arguing over the internet. bring anonymous allows you to debate freely, it also allows you to post on sites of your interest that you don’t want to share with every and anybody.

      Not everyone wants to stand up on a public stage in a room of 1,000 people and speak their mind. Some would rather quietly put their contributions anonymously in the suggestion box.

    • Willow says:


    • pottymouth pup says:

      some abuse and overt threats may stop but based on the shit I see RWNJ post on FB using their real names, I don’t think removing anonymity would stop the nastiness

    • LaraW" says:

      I don’t think removing anonymity is the answer. For example, I would not be able to comment on celebitchy under my real name because of the obligations I have professionally. A lot of online support groups would disappear if people were required to post without the protection of anonymity. For example, a person recovering from sexual abuse and violence would be far more reluctant to share their experience, even in a welcoming community, for fear that the comments would be tracked back to them. There are a lot of marginalized groups who come together on the internet, support each other, are honest in ways they would never allow themselves to be open if it was tied to their real identity.

      Instead, I think the onus should be on the platforms. Some thoughts– and I am writing this with the large tech companies in mind:

      1. Shareholders should mandate diversity requirements at the big tech companies. It’s an industry dominated by white male dude-bros who believed, and still believe, they are above politics and its consequences. Bring in more diversity and I truly believe that the algorithms these companies use to, for example, populate a newsfeed, generate top results, would be different.

      2. Require the implementation of certain algorithms, content moderators and fact checkers based on the number of hits, users, content (eg it would require more attention to moderate a deep dive complex article than a tweet), comments (eg the quality of discussion at celebitchy is higher and much more nuanced than discussion on some other sites), history of comments/interactions, ad revenue, and other relevant metrics. Not every single comment would be subjected to close scrutiny– the algorithm would flag certain comments and posts for review.

      3. Create a government oversight agency that audits and regulates those practices. For example, the content moderators and fact checkers have to go through specific training that is set up by the company, and that training must meet criteria set up by the agency. Another branch of the agency would audit the algorithms used to rank and promote content. Again, use a tiered approach where larger companies with more reach are held to stricter standards.

      4. Violations of those standards lead to steep, steep fines.

      (continued below)

      • LaraW" says:

        5. Require companies to clearly and conspicuously state, each time a person goes to comment or post something, their policies regarding moderation and expectations of netiquette. For example, celebitchy always has commenting guidelines right above the comment box. For the really large social media platforms like FB and twitter, each time a person tweets, there should be a short statement regarding content policy and links to examples of which constitutes policy violations, instead of vague lawyerese about “will not tolerate hate speech.” And make sure above every “submit post” or whatever button, there is text that says “by posting this, I agree to the terms of content moderation of company X” (do they already have this? I’m not on twitter or FB). A lot of people will ignore it, but it provides protection to the platform (who are in turn held accountable by the government agency mentioned above).

        6. The three warnings system has been adopted by FB, but for certain topics, I think they should also include in the warnings a brief video explaining what qualifies as hate speech, racist comments, etc, not just a “your post has been taken down because it violates our policy against blah.” These platforms should do their best to educate their users on why certain content is harmful (concrete examples, not like “damage the national discourse”) Provide links for more education for those interested in better understanding the issues.

        7. Create an international coalition, maybe a branch of the UN (do they already have this?) which rates countries based on the health of their social media (not sure what the criteria would be).

        8. Transparency. Require social media sites to track and release statistics on the percentage of content on their platform related to hate speech, racism, violence, child bullying, etc., including an analysis of the content and the context of these posts. For example, twitter would be required to report the however-many most popular hashtags (based on number of times used and duration), provide a timeline, a brief history, subsequent media coverage, content and consequences of discussion, correlations to real world activities.

        9. Mandate (through the Department of Education) that all schools include education of social media etiquette in their curriculum. To that end, also give more funding for schools to create initiatives that encourage underrepresented groups to study computer programming and enter the industry.

        For starters.

        I mean, it sounds like a lot of work, but if large companies can go after youtubers for violating copyright, they sure as f-ck can set up a system to go through harmful content. These tech companies brag about their algorithms and predicting result of searches and knowing kinds of content you want to see based on user history. They can goddamn well devote just as much time and effort to auto-moderating content. They just haven’t done so because they haven’t had to face steep monetary and government penalties, and this kind of content moderation doesn’t give immediate financial returns. We all know that clicks are considered commodities– what does a company care whether those clicks are from cooking shows or rants full of racist vitriol?

      • Brittany says:

        LARAW, wow! This is a huge part of why I enjoy this site — super thoughtful and informed comments like yours.

      • VS says:

        I get where you are getting at but I don’t fully agree….

        1) I agree with you all that removing complete anonymity will create some issues but what if you are still allowed to post anonymously but your real identity, known only to the SM platform, is still tied to your anonymous identity?
        –> I see one problem here which is possible breach of security

        2) your ideas are great but put 100% of the blame on SM companies which I disagree and are too expensive; because they are that expensive, they will never be implemented. This is capitalism after all! There is a cancer going on in our society, I am specifically talking about the US here. This hateful content is coming from actual people

        3) I do see another issue with 2) as those people can be subjected to disinformation and hateful content can turn hateful themselves….but for them to see that content, shouldn’t they be searching for it to begin with?
        Perhaps it is a chicken and egg problem but in my opinion the problem starts with the people using those SM platforms

        4) This brings us to the point of disinformation; the internet should have made us smarter with so much info, ability to fact check available at our finger tips. Instead it has made most people super lazy.

        5) I just don’t think this is sustainable….

        “I mean, it sounds like a lot of work, but if large companies can go after youtubers for violating copyright, they sure as f-ck can set up a system to go through harmful content.” — this is 100% True but remember again; it is a matter of cost; going after copyright is important; we as a society also have to say, going after hateful content is important. Would that happen in a society as divided as we are in the US?

      • Brittany says:

        VS, #1 and #5 would cost $0. And given the enormous profits the companies make, I don’t see how the others would be that expensive for them either?

      • LaraW" says:

        Response! (Also, I get carried away at the end, it’s not directed at you but at search algorithms.)

        I think that with respect to (1), social media and tech giants hold too much of our information as it is, and time and time again they’ve shown that they use that data improperly, do not disclose to users the extent of the data they track, and do not allow users complete control of their data. For example, are you using Chrome? Are you signed into your Google account right now? Google is tracking– through Chrome– everything you’re doing online. There’s a 99.9% chance that they already have your real identity and that you comment on CB as VS. Google has your location; if you save account information and opt for autofill, it has your name, address, phone, passwords to all your financial and other accounts, your credit cards, your job, where you work, and can extrapolate easily all the members of your family, your circle of friends, your ethnicity, political leanings, level of education, etc. Sure, Google says that they won’t use this personal information and that it’s all anonymous, but we only have the flimsy promise of the company that this is true.

        And it’s probably not. There’s currently a lawsuit which alleges that Google’s “incognito mode” is deceptive because the opening screen claims “Now you can browse privately” and that “Chrome won’t save” certain types of information. It gives many users a false impression that their activity will not be tracked at all and that Google will not retain the information. However, Google continues to track your browsing history and in addition to that, plaintiffs allege that Google actually flags the content you decide to browse in incognito mode. Google and Facebook at this point likely know more about its users than any government in the world.

        So to answer (2): Given the huge amount of resources these companies dedicate to collecting, holding, processing this information– the servers, the storage of the data, the complexity of the coding– and given the net value of all these companies, I think they have more than enough resources to establish a department dedicated to content moderation. Additionally, I don’t think it would be the actual social media companies who take it upon themselves to train and hire the moderators. There would be other companies that emerge– possibly an entire sub-industry– that the big tech companies would hire. Outsourcing content moderation would also reduce the risk of exposing big tech from liability, especially because I think the biggest challenge to this content moderation would be the fact that there’s a very strong argument that the government is regulating speech. Speech has been regulated before (eg the FCC, the fact that “obscenity” (defined legally) is not protected by 1A), but it’s a very fine line to walk.

        I completely agree that hateful content comes from people, but the platform matters because its infrastructure facilitates its rapid spread. There’s a difference between being hateful and ranting on a blog that would reach a limited audience, and being hateful and ranting on social media, which can reach hundreds of millions of people within the span of an hour. And in terms of (3), there’s huge difference between expending effort to actively search for racist content and FB finding it for you, putting it at the top of your newsfeed, with more links to similar posts that feed a person’s confirmation bias. You do not need to seek the misinformation because FB gives it to you, wrapped up in a bow, to start your day.

      • LaraW" says:

        I think this clickbait industry is responsible for the misinformation. Tristan Harris from The Social Dilemma gets to the heart of it, I think, when he says that the most precious commodity on the internet is a person’s attention. Grab a person’s attention, convert it into clicks, and that’s how websites make money. There’s a huge amount of content out there, all competing for our attention and we are going to click on what we’re interested in, whether it’s true or not. We’ve all seen this play out with Harry and Meghan. This is why I think the algorithms that drive social media, google searches, are so important. Additionally, Google is known to deliberately suppress certain search results. TikTok actively promotes the videos of white people and actively demotes the videos of black people. We tell people to go on Google and educate themselves about racism. I type “racism” into google and the first result is a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary. Second result? Definition from Merriam Webster. Third result? Wikipedia.

        Type in “what is racism” – OED, and a sidebar which says “Racism,” and underneath that “Political Ideology.” Under that?

        “Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different ethnicity.”

        What is this bullshit about “it MAY also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism”???? Why is the first sentence some whitewashed sanitized “racism is the believe that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance.” Is that what you think of when you hear the word “racism”??

        1. OED: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

        Okay, sure. But then the example sentence is “education is a right, not a privilege.” WTF?

        This is a decision that Google made, to have the first result of “racism” be a definition from the OED. Because when I type in “money,” do I get the OED? No. I get most recent news stories about money, then a definition from Investopedia. The first result I get for the word “celebrity” is for Celebrity Cruise Lines. It’s clearly an ad, but nowhere in the entry does it say that it’s an ad. So “money” gets to have news stories as its first result, but “racism” doesn’t? News stories are halfway down the results page. And what are those news stories? “Psychiatry Confronts Its Racist Past, Tries to Make Amends,” NYT. “How President Biden confronted racism and injustice in his first 100 days,” USA Today. “Asian Americans see a generational split on confronting racism,” AP News. Wow, these seem like really hard hitting, important articles discussing race in America.

        I lost the thread of my rant. But I guess the bottom line is Google is not a friend. The search is not impartial. The design of the website is not impartial. It’s another way that white males have an advantage in an unregulated space, and it needs to change. In the United States, change costs money. If Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc can’t afford to make those changes, then they don’t deserve to be in business.

    • Snappyfish says:

      Happy Birthday to Princess Charlotte. That’s the post.

    • Bunny says:

      I’d set up a committee of different people to review accounts that are problematic beyond a certain threshold. Like, if you have 12 items removed in a 12 month period, you get a review.

      I’ve been on FB since the very earliest days – I had an academic email address. I have yet to have a single thing removed.

      It isn’t that difficult to not post racist, sexist, demeaning garbage. If it is that difficult, that person has issues.

    • Edna says:

      An excellent book that explains how search engines enforce hate is:
      Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism Paperback – Illustrated, February 20, 2018
      by Safiya Umoja Noble (Author)

  2. Osty says:

    😀😀😀😀 wills should clean up his house first, he should also learn that racism is everywhere not in football, before disturbing us with his performative nonsense, . And once again keen is inserting himself into things for PR

    • MrsRobinson says:

      Social media is perfect for William—it’s performative and someone else can do it for him.

      • Carrie says:

        Even his statement is shite:
        I join the entire football community in the social media boycott this weekend should have been :
        I join the entire football community in the social media boycott “against racism in football” this weekend.
        His statement did not say why he was joining the boycott.

    • Randie says:

      That’s right!
      What’s that old adage? Manners begin at home. He needs to take care of racism in his own then head to the football field.

  3. harla says:

    At least he’s against some racism because as we’ve seen racist abuse of his family members or racist abuse of ordinary people doesn’t bother him. Oh William how can you be so blind and tone deaf?? I just don’t understand it.

  4. equality says:

    I really don’t see how a boycott for one weekend is going to effect much change. And, of course, the picture released is by Kate and on the other royal SM sites anyway. The KP paid bots are also reposting the photo over and over and tagging H&M in it in a bid for attention.

    • Midnight@theOasis says:

      Question. I’m not on Twitter. Why do they tag H&M in their posts? I’ve seen that mentioned before.

      • equality says:

        I assume because tagging W&K doesn’t get much attention or maybe just to try to annoy H&M fans.

      • Ginger says:

        If they tag William or Kate or even Charlotte, it won’t trend. They do this all the time. It’s pretty sad. They know their favs are irrelevant.

  5. Becks1 says:

    William announcing the KP boycott was just….ineffectual, like you said. KP doesn’t usually post a lot on weekends anyway and they just used other royal social media outlets, like the Royal Family’s account, to release Charlotte’s picture. Holding off on the release of that until the weekend was over would have been a bigger statement IMO.

    In general, it’s of course hypocritical for William to be so “active” in stamping out racism in football but not in his own family. Sports don’t happen in a vacuum. The royal family has a huge platform to educate people about anti-racism or the different forms racism can take, and instead they let comments linger on their IG that use cruel nicknames to describe the black member of the family.

    • Cecilia says:

      And thats my whole issue with this campaign. Where do they think racism in football comes from? You can’t address racism in football without addressing racism in general in a society. And im sorry but the tabloids he is actively working with contribute a lot to racism online, particularly to black footballers who have been a subject of their bigoted articles. Just ask raheem sterling. This is ineffective and performative and, quite frankly, they could have kept this.

      • tolly says:

        It’s a very privileged and self-protective approach, to highlight the most blatant bad behavior without addressing underlying issues. Idiots howling racial epithets at the top of their lungs are racist, and Wills has never done that, so he thinks that he can’t be racist. This is a way for people in power to limit the definition of racism, shut down discussion of systemic issues and exonerate themselves.

    • Nic919 says:

      This is it. If you are against racism in social media then you need to clean up your own accounts first and remove the racist comments about your own sister in law. They sure as hell respond when it is comments about Rose and the affair so we know someone is reviewing them.

    • My3cents says:

      He’s so serious about this cause guys that he’s going the extra mile and boycotting work for the next month.

    • Eurydice says:

      He’s not really announcing the boycott, is he – he’s just joining something that already exists. He’s joining – not endorsing or encouraging others to join him. He doesn’t even mention the word racism – the palest of weekend revolutionaries.

  6. Ginger says:

    William should never speak on racism. Never.
    We all know they let the racists comments fly on their social media when it was directed at Meghan and Archie. But if you posted a rose emoji or spoke of his affair the comment was deleted and you were blocked.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    William just proved that Harry was saying the truth once again. By giving Charlotte’s photo to the media as expected and not after the boycott ended shows that he is trapped. Also instead of KP posting the picture the Royal Family twitter did it instead. William’s tweet didn’t even mention the reason for the boycott.

    • harla says:

      It would have been much more powerful for KP to hold off on releasing Char’s photo until Monday and state why they are doing that. Having someone else release it really negates whatever William was trying to do. But as you said, the tabloids expect their pound of flesh and Willy paid up.

      • Amy Too says:

        It would’ve made a much more powerful statement about taking the boycott seriously because the reasons for the boycott are THAT serious and much more important than making sure you can get a thousand cutesy comments about how “regal” or “princessy” Charlotte looks…. but it also would’ve created a much larger buzz around charlotte’s pictures when they were eventually released! They could tie in her pictures and articles about her bday with the social media ban and the fighting racism in football, thus spreading the pictures further. Rather than having to tag Harry and Meghan in every post, or add their names into every article about the Cambridges, this would’ve been a way to make the articles impactful and interesting on their own, and even get international coverage. “UK’s prince William and Princess Kate delayed posting the traditional birthday portrait of Princess Charlotte on social media in order to participate in anti-racism protest! The couple posted pics of Princess Charlotte three days later than usual in order to respect the social media blackout. The lack of photos on the princess’s birthday led to increased awareness of the social media boycott meant to protest racism in football. By not posting the photos themselves, or even allowing others to post them, they cut down significantly on commenting, liking, retweeting, reposting, and sharing that goes on on the social media platforms whenever a royal child’s birthday portrait is posted, thus ensuring that not only did they not participate in social media that weekend, but their fans were also much less active on the platforms than they would have been on the princess’s birthday weekend.”

        That would have been a great story! And so much more impactful. Because sure, KP didn’t post the usual 2 posts that they would around a birthday “here’s some pictures”/“thanks for the comments, here’s another picture,” but their fans were likely WAAAY more active than usual on the platforms because they were engaging with charlotte’s pictures. So they had a net negative effect on this whole social media blackout thing. More people were on social media because of them than normally would’ve been. They are the worst at everything they do. It was a stupid and very ineffectual thing for them to participate in in the first place, especially considering how much pull and privilege William has. He’s the president of some football thing, he could do way more than pay lip service to participating in a social media blackout. (that’s something that would make sense for a teenage fan to do. Someone who doesn’t have the same reach, voice, platform, money, resources, or power as Will.) But then they find a way to blatantly thwart the blackout and drive more social media traffic to themselves and the RF accounts and the very tabloid accounts that enable and amplify racism in their football coverage!? This is so them. Doing something that requires no effort from themselves, or that they know will be an ineffectual and empty gesture that will not make a difference, yet expecting huge amount of good PR and praise for it, and then still somehow finding a way to screw that thing up. The commitment they make to their patronages is out of all proportion to their powerful and influential position. They do the same thing that any 13 year old child could do, and yet they are 2,000 more powerful and influential than the child so they should be doing something 2,000x larger/riskier.

  8. Sofia says:

    Oh look everyone. It’s William’s monthly “racism is bad!” thing where he says “racism is bad” and yet does nothing.

    Plus he doesn’t even mention the reason (racism) for the boycott in the tweet. And yes people will go “well you can google about it yourself” and that’s fine but would it really have been so hard for William to say “I’m boycotting social media because of the rampant racial abuse in football” or something in his tweets?

    • JeJoKo says:

      Totally agree.

    • Becks1 says:

      @Sofia yeah I didn’t even realize at first the reason for the boycott. I saw other accounts talking about what was going on. It’s like he’s going out of his way to do the bare minimum and to avoid any backlash.

    • swirlmamad says:

      He’s so useless and it’s pointless to have him as a spokesperson for this issue. He will never come across as genuine as long as the smears and awfulness against his SIL and brother still stand….and that is alive and well thanks to his bidding.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        He’s useless in every aspect of his patronage’s and so called personal actions or activity to appear as a man that will one day be king so he wants to show people that he cares. The reality of that, is that most of us know he doesn’t care. Never has and never will. Baldemort only cares about himself and that’s as far as his dedication will go.

  9. Jais says:

    If Britain has no institutional racism, as their govt. report says, how can their possibly be racism in British football? Lol I guess they’re 2 diff things and not related at all.

    You and your fam could have declared a social media boycott over the comments made towards your SIL 2 years ago and oh yeah deleted the racism that was left up in your insta comments. If you had done that, maybe it would have set an example against those now saying racist things online to football players. But you didn’t. In fact, your silence about your SIL prob directly contributed to the brazen comments you see now in sports.
    So yeah GTFOH Mr. Very Much Not a Racist Family

    • harla says:

      Exactly! Since people and the press are free to hurl abuse at a member of the Royal Family without consequence how exactly are ordinary citizens supposed to feel safe?

    • Cessily says:

      At the very least they could monitor the hate comments or turn comments off all together on their social media. Leaving them is making a very loud and clear statement.

  10. Sure says:

    It’s been pointed out that W doesn’t actually use the R word in his tweet. Too scared of another Twitter backlash to genuinely care about stamping out racism in football ( we know he doesn’t care about it in his own family or the wider community)

    • goofpuff says:

      That’s because he probably doesn’t even know why they’re boycotting because there’s no racism in the UK (major sarcasm there). He’s just trying to be relevant.

  11. Harper says:

    My idea is for Wills to abdicate and then get a job as a football announcer, or rather, traveling commentator, as a regular position might be too much for him. Sports appear to be his real passion; does he get as riled up and tweet as much about the BAFTAS of which he also is president? NO. Will might believe he is definitely not racist, but his off-the-cuff jokes about delivery drivers being pinned down and frisked at KP and his absolute FAILURE to censure the racially-based cartoons and headlines aimed at Meghan and Archie invalidates anything he says now.

    • Cecilia says:

      No doubt he likes football, but every man in the UK (and the rest of europe tbh) likes football. That’s not to say that its his passion tho. I don’t think william really has a passion. I think he’s just now doing more with the position he has with the FA because william is trying to rebrand himself. He’s trying to go from the boring heir, to a bloke who at the same time is very conscious of the environment and apparently racism.

      • swirlmamad says:

        He thinks this will somehow absolve him of his role in the bullying and torture of Meghan. It just happens to be related to something he gives a sh*t about (football) so it’s a little easier to put on the show that he actually cares. Too bad for him anyone with half a brain can see right through him. Will is so tediously predictable.

    • Eleonor says:

      If you get him rid of the “Royalness” probably you will see him at “Dancing with the stars”.

  12. Jay says:

    Yeah, imagine if instead of “disengaging” for a weekend, he announced a new policy for the KP accounts, one that would intensively moderate racist comments? A boycott is only effective if we miss something by your absence.

    He could also set an example by supporting or highlighting action groups, turning over the KP account for a weekend to someone who works in this area, or using his platform to educate about anti-racism, under the assumption that most racists don’t think they are racists.

    Instead, his focus is always on the appearance of racism – the obvious racist chants, name calling, but he’s not addressing the underlying institutional power structures, probably because he benefits from them.

    Instead, it’s “boring”, like “stop ruining my leisure time with your inconvenient racism!” You get the sense that he’d be perfectly fine if racists just learned to better disguise their tacky remarks into more socially acceptable forms.

  13. Heidi says:

    Kate couldn’t wear a black dress for #MeToo.

    Meghan’s VOGUE title was too political.

    But when William cares about something, it’s okay all of a sudden?

    These people can change the “Royal Protocol” any time they want.

  14. Dawning says:

    Why is the football community boycotting social media, William? Say it!

  15. BountyHunter says:

    Lazy, bored, vague, incompetent. The absolute meaninglessness of his post is downright embarrassing.

  16. Lizzie says:

    He doesn’t have one leadership bone in his body. If he did he would have stepped in and denounced the media racism against Meghan and Archie. What kind of ffk snickers at racist ‘jokes’.

  17. Water Bearer 💧 says:

    This suits William to a tee, it’s window dressing. It’s not addressing the institutional and structural problems that allow racism to flourish in football. That would be seen as getting political.

    Sorry to hijack the thread but have you seen Barbara Ellen’s comment piece in the Guardian? She argues that the Cambridges have benefited enormously from the Sussexes leaving. I mean we’ve all seen the coverage about how the Cambridges are best for Britain, are perfect because they are not the Sussexes and will save the monarchy. So their unique selling point is that they are not the Sussexes and can provide an alternative. What you guys have been saying for a while now. It’s nice to see the main stream media picking up on it.

    • ABritGuest says:

      Nah if you read the article the writer acknowledges that the Cambridges are doing marketing & presenting as the anti Sussexes but basically says it’s a good thing. No analysis that some only started championing the Cambridges and Kate especially for being all white.

      Also talks about how tough the claims on Oprah eg skin colour test has been on the Cambridges (!) and the indignity of Meghan talking about Kate making her cry and waity Katie. In other words peak white feminism. Also example of how the Guardian helps prop up establishment bodies like the royal family despite supposedly being republican.

      Bill only really talking about racism in football is quite typical of how many in Britain only recognise racism in the context of slurs and bananas thrown on pitches etc. Unpleasant actions stopping them from enjoying their favourite past times. Racist rags like the Sun also joined in the boycott so Bill’s performative activism on racism fits right in.

      • Gina says:

        #ABritGuest Agree with your analysis completely. This article left me uncomfortable.
        I cringed reading about Cambridge marketing being present to us as a positive thing and how selling themselves as a “normal couple” can attract new generations of Royal fans. This journalist is basically saying that the fandom of Bill&Kate is based on hate for Harry&Meghan. She looks at this phenomenon as just PR strategy, nor delving into moral/ethical aspects. Sure, normal Bill and his wife is benefitting from it. But why this is positive? And is she really right in her conclusion that general public hates Harry and Meghan or at least, don’t like them? She states that Bill&Kate are winners. Is this so or she just want to make them winners?

      • Water Bearer 💧 says:

        I did read the article and half the stuff you are talking about wasn’t even in the article. I’ll leave it at that.

      • equality says:

        Maybe you are referring to a different article? Because I saw the things @Brit Guest saw. I don’t agree with her that K&W are doing so well at their PR. They have 2.1 mil followers on Twitter, less than the RF account with 4.6 mil. I don’t see where they have gained a significant number. Did they put all their money into upping instagram numbers to compete with H&M?

    • Yes the Cambridges are so hard-selling themselves to the world. But nobody’s picking them up. True one needs a bucket to retch for their direct, insistent and gushing overacting “in love” performance after the Oprah interview.

  18. Me says:

    The unregulated marketplace is pretty red in tooth and claw. Government has a real and necessary place in our lives and it is to make and enforce the guardrails of our society. Social media is a nearly completely Libertarian space at the present and we can see with our own eyes how malignant a small group of malevolent people can be — how that relatively small group can poison the larger society. Human nature is a lot of things, good, decent, kind, but also weak, venal, and easily corrupted. (Just watch a sibling group fight over an estate—-money usually triumphs.)

    As for PWT, I’ve seen this in my career with otherwise decent people—do not underestimate the extent to which people live quite contentedly in their own narrow, little bubble and know and have experienced nothing else. That bubble works for them—they are not interested in making a change and they don’t want to be bothered or see (and have to deal with) ugly issues.

  19. Lauren says:

    I thought that he single-handily solved racism by declaring that he was bored by it. Do you mean to tell me that the FFK is ineffective? Who would have thought?!

  20. Merricat says:

    William is weak. This is his lukewarm idea of activism? Lol. The call is coming from inside the house, dearie.

  21. J ferber says:

    Brilliant play by William. It’s another event checked off for him that entails doing nothing, less than nothing. He’ll try to get more events like this. He can boycott so many things: sexism, covid, global warming , etc. These will be his new events. Plus the talking on the phone counts as another event! Don’t break your back giving back to the country, william!😉

  22. Over it says:

    Why don’t we all just boycott the keenbridges. It would be so wonderful.

    • swirlmamad says:

      I do in a way. I don’t interact with their social media. I love to get my frustration with them out here on this site, literally the only place on the internet where it’s okay to do so with like-minded people. I have a friend who “loves both couples” and tries to tell me that I’m wrong about W+K and Charles is the only evil one in this saga. I’ve had to check her so many times….she’s so blinded b/c all she reads is People and Us Weekly.

    • VS says:

      I do; I have blocked all their social media; not just of W&K but the all members of the RF.
      All royal reporters except Omid are blocked; I blocked all UK newspapers except the Economist and the FT….. the good thing about the Sussexes is that as soon as a news about them drops, the entire media is on it so I rarely miss anything…..I also check their website quite regularly

  23. Tanesha86 says:

    Hey Will, the call is coming from inside the house 😩. Maybe work on you and your family’s racism before you tackle football, yeah?

  24. Willow says:


  25. TheOriginalMia says:

    Pathetic, halfhearted gesture which is immediately undone by releasing Charlotte’s picture on social media. The last time William condemned abuse, he got zero support from the FA and the black footballers who were targeted. They didn’t buy it then and they don’t buy his support now. Probably because of the way he & the Royal family didn’t handle and contributed to the racial abuse of Meghan and Archie. Have a seat, William. Let the adults fight against racism.

    • equality says:

      To me this also shows that the RF don’t back each other. If they did, BP and CH would have boycotted with them instead of posting for Charlotte’s birthday.

  26. February-Pisces says:

    Him and his wife were the sole beneficiaries of the racist abuse Meghan endured. His wife told lies to to play up to the racist stereotype of vulnerable white woman/angry black woman dynamic. He was racist to his own nephew, working with his father to ensure archie had no royal status or security, just because of the colour of his skin. He even wanted to ship his biracial SIL and brother to Africa. He can go and f*ck himself cos his performative ‘concern’ isn’t fooling anyone.

  27. Cessily says:

    It takes more than a declaration. What is the plan to address the problem? What are the proposed solutions? What would be the consequences for noncompliance?
    Accomplishments involve more than declarations.
    Either way sadly for other reasons, looks like angry fans have delayed any football. At least Liverpool and Manchester competition. (Wonder if the social media ban will be broken to protest the protesters?) just hope and pray it ends peacefully.

  28. notasugarhere says:

    He’s perfectly okay with racism in football too. The PR photo op of dragging the kids to a match? That was Not To Be Interrupted, even when the match was constantly interrupted by racist chants from fellow fans. If William cared about racism in football, he would have walked out of the match and made a statement about leaving because of the racist chants.

    • swirlmamad says:

      And even worse, just sitting on your royal a*s WITH YOUR CHILDREN PRESENT and letting them hear that vile garbage and you do nothing??? Some role model. The Cambridges are pathetic, useless and the model of white supremacy.

  29. Nina says:

    William is boycotting social media because they can no longer copy H&M without being called out. All their attempts are like grandpa sneezing all over his birthday cake. Cringy and off-putting. There, fixed it for you, William.

    Funny, this is announced after they were mocked for the anniversary pictures and video. It’s a hard world out there Wee Willy, so gird your loins. Because being the FFK, meh.

  30. Islandgirl says:

    I would like Prince William to know that as he and the courtiers float the idea that Meghan may be booed if she returns to the UK, he and Prince Charles should be preparing themselves for such a reaction when they visit the black and brown countries of the commonwealth. The BRF should know that their piss-poor response to racism is being noticed.

    • Lady D says:

      IKR!?!? They must honestly think us CW colonial boobs love and worship everything about them. I expect to see very few tours from W&K going forward, but Sophie can probably look forward to lots of travel.

    • Tessa says:

      Yes I see the bots on social media going on about Meghan being “booed.”

  31. Mamasan says:

    And this man is the future figurehead of the United Kingdom? Wow.🙄

  32. Jaded says:

    Another half-hearted, meaningless gesture from Prince Useless. Why don’t you direct some of your sympathy to how you turned a blind eye to the horrific treatment of your sister-in-law to the point where she became suicidal? You are a mean, self-obsessed little man-child William and you should be heartily ashamed of yourself. You condoned the very thing you’re now speaking out against with such self-righteous indignation and ruined your relationship with your own brother because of it. You’re a feckless excuse of a human being.

    • kelleybelle says:

      Couldn’t have said it better myself. Well done.

    • swirlmamad says:

      YASSSSSSS, Jaded.

    • Agreatreckoning says:

      @Jaded, Absolutely. If racism was something he felt passionate or had any real authentic feelings against, he would have put the rr’s/tabloids on blast for all the things said about Meghan-back then. Regardless of the “invisible contract”. But, I believe, he couldn’t do that because he is the one who made the color comments/questions. William lies to maintain an image, he lies because he’s so wrong in his behavior and he will continue to lie to cover other lies because that’s how he’s lived the majority of his life. A superfluous twitter post isn’t even a good attempt to try to support his ‘we are very much not a racist family’ statement. The more he says the worse he looks.

  33. FancyPants says:

    Asking as someone who has no social media accounts: What is the point of this boycott? What is this boycott? Do people just not post anything all weekend? Who is supposed to be bothered by this? I highly doubt people aren’t looking at any social media all weekend. This reminds me of whatever that hashtag was about saving the kidnapped children in Nigeria that time. It’s not like Boko Haram was gonna see themselves trending on Twitter and say “whoops we better give them back now.”

    • Amy Too says:

      I think it’s supposed to make the social media companies worry about the lost revenue that’s coming from the boycott and this should hopefully scare them into moderating posts and comments more effectively so that racist comments about footballers get deleted every time and quickly. If some of the bigger footballers and their celebrity supporters and even a large amount of regular folks aren’t posting or viewing posts, then that means fewer people are interacting with social media (both those that are boycotting and those that would normally follow/comment/like/retweet the accounts that are boycotting), and therefore they’re spending less time on social media, seeing fewer ads, the price of ads goes down, and the social media companies make less money. But by having a publicized end date for your boycott, I’m not sure how effective this would be? If it was open ended and they refused to get back on social media until action was taken, that would likely force the companies to do something. But right now, the companies just have to wait it out for 2 days. Maybe it will be a recurring boycott that they do every weekend. Unless the boycott is just to raise awareness to the cause, in which case I would think talking about the cause would be more effective than just not posting for a weekend. Maybe the idea is that the people who aren’t boycotting will talk a lot about how the people they like to follow aren’t posting and how annoying that is…. so the social media companies should do what they want?

  34. Betsy says:

    I don’t want to discount the experience of racism among “footballers,” but seriously, is that a big percentage of people? Why does he focus on this one narrow slice of people?

    • Sid says:

      Because football is one of the few things he seems to express any interest in, and that is apparently one of the only avenues through which you can get him to do anything approaching some semblance of “work” or putting in an effort. However miniscule.

    • Eurydice says:

      Well, for what it’s worth, he’s President of the Football Association and has been for 15 years. That doesn’t really mean anything because it’s a figurehead position, so I don’t know what actual work he does in that capacity.

    • Tessa says:

      William when he started “working” had mostly patronages involving watching sports and he went to “after parties” with the team. That was “work” for him.

  35. Vanessa says:

    This is Just one empty Purpose Causes for William to not look Racist this so the royal reporters can said how can the Royal be Racist when William is against it .

  36. aquarius64 says:

    Billy needs to address the racism in his own family before he says ANYTHING about racism in a professional sport or anywhere. Racial inequality doesn’t seem to be a concern in the UK and the Tory government. But William is a future head of state and a potential head of the Commonwealth. Does the BRF really think this is a good look where the are are CW nations were the minority is the majority? And William still hasn’t been clear as being the one that made the comment about Atchie’s skin color. The crisis managers that are suppose to start this month are not only duty or they are not listen taken seriously.

  37. Lila says:

    Work that involves…not working? Sign William up! I’m sure he wishes he could just do a bunch of boycotts for all his causes.

  38. Gingerbee says:

    So, Baldy is boycotting SM, and not the ratchet rodents, aka rota. He is an hypocrite, because he never spoke up about the racial abuse Meghan received, nor has he said anything about BLM.

  39. NotSoSimpleTaylor says:

    No wonder William is pissed off. He’s missing football and he’s pissed at Harry and Meghan blowing up the family and forcing him into this media strategy. Lol.

  40. Izzy says:

    Well, The Sun announced they would be participating in the boycott, so to that extent, I guess the campaign succeeded by making the internet a little less racist, even if it is temporary.

    Other than that, I don’t really get how staying off social media for two days fights racism.

  41. Coco says:

    Wait, is there a specific football event this weekend? Because this isn’t how a boycott is supposed to work.

  42. Merricat says:

    As usual, the very least that can be done is William’s forte, and he couldn’t even do that properly.

  43. Randie says:

    Its all center stage. Worldwide eyes are on William. Does he or anyone BRF really think this is a good look??!
    How many in the Commonwealth and far wider are shaking their heads. This is a bad strategic move on William’s part.
    He is in the world of court opinion. The world is watching him.
    He is failing…

  44. Lucylee says:

    The folks at KP seem to be lacking a strategy for how to champion their causes.

  45. Tessa says:

    The social media accounts say horrible things about Meghan even some hoping she’ll be booed if she returns and How perfect Kate is and how Meghan said “mean things”. This is something the Cambridges probably see, I notice no outrage about that. Some even put down Diana to bolster Kate.

  46. Moonie says:

    POS hypocrite: what about all the racist and abusive media towards his OWN BROTHER and Meghan? WILL GETS WHAT WILL WANTS: to look good. Dumbass no-account loser.

  47. Moonie says:

    POS hypocrite: what about all the racist and abusive media towards his OWN BROTHER and Meghan? WILL GETS WHAT WILL WANTS: to look good. Dumbass no-account loser.

  48. rawiya says:

    Of course he joins in when it’s to do “nothing” for the weekend.