Another day , another statement !

[Mylovelygreendress]

From The Office blah blah …https://sussex.com/fact-checking-meta/

You and I both now this has nothing to do with censorship or free speech. This is clearly political and it's interesting that the same people complaining about censorship (in the US anyway) have no problem with it when it benefits them, like banning some books in school, constantly attacking education calling it indoctrination and pushing for the Board of Education to be abolished

This is not about free speech. This is about cosying up to the incoming administration, money and power

So then Meghan will leave Instagram then? Because it’s owned by META, the ones cosying up to the incoming administration, money and power.

Surely the thing to do is for her to come off Insta, create their own joy-spreading platform and implement all the restrictions they feel are necessary to achieve what they’re asking of other platforms?

Posted too soon. edited to add that leading by example is the best way of getting their message out, if it’s as important to them as they say.

Brilliant idea, they should

There is always the platform their buddy, Bouzy, owns, they would be very welcome there, ailing that, there is Discord and Bluesky.

Never heard of Discord or Bluesky, but is the toxic Bouzy's platform this Spoutible thing?

And do many actually use any of these? Because if not I'm not sure how much use they would be to another couple of attention seekers

Yes, that's the one !

Bluesy is apparently like Twitter. Discord was initially used by gamers, but has expanded to other subjects, never been on either of them. I think Facebook and instagram may be the lesser of all those SM evils.

Thanks, @Thedom ... if Bluesky's a Twitter clone I won't be going on that either, I already ignore Instagram and though I have a Facebook account it's never used

Really, though, I was mainly wondering how many actually use the ghastly Bouzy's thing, because while this isn't my world I'm just not seeing the kind of footfall which H&M would want for their silliness

OMG that statement has so much wrong with it. Mangled syntax, as someone else said, terrible grammar, pomposity, just awful!

I imagine the palace advisors probably tell KC to just leave them to it, they don't need anyone to damage their reputations, they're doing a brilliant job on their own. Silence from the BRF has 100% turned out to be a brilliant policy IMO.

No more jam or dog biscuits for Nacho Figueras. He agrees with Zuckerberg.

The professional polo player re-shared the video statement by Zuckerberg announcing the policy change, adding the caption: “This is so important. Return of free speech.”

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/harry-and-meghan-release-blistering-statement-abuse/news-story/343defa73289ab158a5f22d5c2dece10

Out of interest, does anyone actually disagree with anything in that statement?

Don’t agree. I think Harry has most probably put him through hell.

Whose statement? Nachos, just referenced? Or the H&M one?

I'd have to understand any actual, tangible points they are making before I could say I agree or disagree.

As it is, it's just indignant, barely comprehensible word salad.

Blistering? It really isn't.

If you put Spare or the OW interview through a fact checker, how do you think they would do?

From the Telegraph yesterday, I think this articulates exactly where they have landed in a lot of peoples view.

More out of touch than ever

On Tuesday, Harry and Meghan grandly issued a lengthy joint statement about Facebook. And it shows they’re now even more out of touch than ever.

And, in their indignation, the Sussexes resorted to all manner of shriekingly melodramatic liberal clichés. Apparently, this attempt to promote free expression risks “normalising hate speech”, sowing “division”, undermining “diversity and equity”, endangering “marginalised communities”, and even “destroying democracy”.

Not long ago, this type of shrill hyperbole was effective. It helped progressives get their own way, by cowing the rest of society into meek compliance. But not any more

If the Sussexes were remotely in touch with public feeling – in either Meghan’s country of birth or Harry’s – they would have realised this. They would recognise that times have decisively changed. The mood has shifted. The world has moved on.

But the Sussexes haven’t even noticed. They’re still mindlessly parroting outmoded slogans, and cluelessly clinging to yesterday’s trends. To borrow one of the Left’s favourite phrases: they’re on the wrong side of history.

https://archive.ph/spBRx

She definitely has a screw loose

Wow that Telegraph article is brutal. I agree with it though!

I would feel less concerned if this push for free speech wasn’t coming from the peddlers and inhabitants of the worst of the social media cesspits where bile designed to cause maximum offence and upset isn’t a daily feature in order to line the pickets of powerful, wealthy, unelected white men.

“Free speech” when used to virtue signal generally seems to mean speech that the writer agrees with. And here, quite obviously, speech that aligns with the statement writer’s political and cultural views. This paragraph in particular demonstrates the problem:

Given the profound global impact Meta’s decisions have on the world—of which many are still recovering from or actively suffering from—the politics of one country should never determine whether freedom of expression and civil and human rights are protected in the online spaces so clearly shaping or destroying democracy.

Given they expressly point out that hundreds of millions of people use Meta’s platforms globally it’s strange they haven’t recognised that they really only want the politics of one wing of one country (the liberal values of the democratic USA) to be valued. Not all of the people using Meta value democracy. Not all countries in which it operates recognise the same civil, let along human rights. Which is directly against what they claim in this paragraph. It’s a contradiction in terms.

True free speech is more along the lines of that (alleged) expressed by Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. That’s not exactly what Meghan and Harry are advocating for here, is it. Free speech is hard, not glib, like their statement.

Excellent point.

As far as I could make out - without wading through all of it, admittedly - they are saying nothing new, and they are saying it badly.

People have an issue with the Sussexes positioning themselves as moral arbiters, custodians of the truth, and thought leaders, because they have demonstrated that they don't have what it takes to be any of those things.

That's why they're getting so much stick for this statement.

I wonder if the Sussex Squad appreciate the statement. They regularly spread hate, lies, misinformation on social media. The Duke and Duchess don't appear to have cared much when the hate, lies and misinformation is in 'support' of the Duke and Duchess.

I've read the statement a couple of times. It is peculiarly hyperbolic. One would think that prior to Meta's recent statement that their online platforms were places of sweetness and light. The online safety horse has well and truly bolted.

I think the actions of the Duke and Duchess and their online supporters render their statement utterly meaningless.