Harry and Meghan - OP updated with Threadbanned Users 4/5/21

squidgainz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120358063#Comment_120358063

Apologies, read your comment arseways.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120357251#Comment_120357251

I disagree, there is plenty of vile comments about her looks or lampooning her mental health issues that neither resulted in a thread band or a pile on calling them out.

Either way the lady in the article is talking about the magnification of perceived slights and the perpetual negative narrative she is subject to.

Like I said I cannot fathom why she receives the level of malevolence she does.

Whatever the reasons it is at least low level bullying.

Be right back

...

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120358592#Comment_120358592

Alternatively it’s calling out a woman very aufait with how the media works and using it to her advantage

Boggles

This is truly fascinating and quite scary stuff.

https://www.thecut.com/2022/01/new-report-meghan-markle-was-focus-of-twitter-hate-campaign.html

A second report released in November of 2021 found that journalists and royal commentators frequently interacted with previously identified hate accounts. Bot Sentinel reported that, upon analysis, “nine out of ten prominent Twitter accounts that primary cover the royal family, in fact, had interacted with at least one of the 84 hate accounts we were monitoring.” This might sound relatively benign, but the report also stated that the organization had found one case in which a conspiracy theory about Markle and Prince Harry’s Time magazine cover linked to one of the hate accounts actually made its way to “an award-winning journalist and author,” who shared the theory on Twitter and reportedly discussed it on television

Seems to be quite lucrative too.

For example, the report details one YouTube channel focused on anti-Meghan Markle content reportedly has ties to Markle’s estranged half sister, Samantha Markle, was able to create a network with two other anti-Meghan channels across platforms. Per the report, these three anti-Meghan YouTube channels have over 70 million views combined, as well as “$495,730” in total YouTube earnings.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-61721607

The suggestion they don't need security is ludicrous.

Neil Basu - the former head of counter-terrorism policing in England - was speaking to Channel 4 News in his final interview as assistant commissioner.

"If you'd seen the stuff that was written and you were receiving it, the kind of rhetoric that's online, if you don't know what I know, you would feel under threat all of the time," he said.

When asked if there had been genuine threats to Meghan from the far-right, he added: "Absolutely.

"We had teams investigating it. People have been prosecuted for those threats."

Bonkers.

superflyninja

Looks like H&M are to be on another upcoming episode of South Park. Huzzah!

valoren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120360501#Comment_120360501

Re Bot Sentinel. The 84 account number needed to be reduced to 83 because one of the accounts labelled "problematic" was actually a pro Sussex account. Were you going to include the bit where Twitter in response investigated it and concluded that there was no widespread co-ordination? The criteria for determining what constituted Hate was also not listed by Bouzy and so the whole Bot Sentinel approach is pseudoscientific. It wouldn't be difficult to find hate since reasonable criticism even here is labelled as such.

I personally think the whole Bot Sentinel type thing is actually helpful for brand protection and can be used and disseminated by PR companies to media in order to protect their clients and their marketability e.g. in this case it may well have been Sunshine Sachs engaging with Christopher Bouzy who then goes and invokes selective bias and, with impressive sounding scientific wording, concludes that there is a co-ordinated campaign of hate i.e. Hey media (and potential clients). Our clients are not actually unlikeable. Look at the data. Here's a report saying it is mostly made up/bot accounts on Twitter spreading hate for our clients and everyone else really just loves them. It didn't work. Even Sunshine bloody Sachs gave up on them.

Karppi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120360501#Comment_120360501

It actually is, and it's both disgraceful and unacceptable behaviour by all involved. The polarisation of the left and right of the political spectrum seems more evident than ever, and the internet has provided a (mostly anonymous) vehicle to publish the alt-right and the woke propaganda and hatred from the extremes of both ends.

Twitter is an awful echo chamber as far as I can see (no, I don't use Twitter, so I might not be the best judge).

It would seem that the UK police are investigating such threats and that pair of White Suprematists are in court. Interestingly, Neil Basu stops short of saying that H&M need security, and I'm prepared to leave it to competent people in the UK and particularly RAVEC to determine who gets security from the Royal Protection Squad. As you know, Harry's in court proceedings with them at the moment.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120360807#Comment_120360807

I'd take Twitters "findings" with the truck of salt they deserve.

But you completely and widely missed the point.

If respected and established Royal "Journalists" are interacting with and spreading the false information, that gives the lies credence. That's before you even get onto the 100s or 1000s of negative tabloid articles.

It's a frenzy of insidious and toxic behaviour which seems concerted and deliberate by some very deranged groups.

Again, not just my opinion.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120360862#Comment_120360862

I'm prepared to leave it to competent people in the UK and particularly RAVEC to determine who gets security from the Royal Protection Squad. As you know, Harry's in court proceedings with them at the moment.

I wouldn't be so confident, in the aftermath of the horrific murder of David Amess, some MPs came forward with stories of how the security services over there were not taking threats to safety seriously.

https://news.sky.com/video/former-labour-mp-paula-sherriff-says-police-response-to-her-safety-concerns-as-a-parliamentarian-was-inadequate-12436811

The irony being Harry is in court with the Home Office who are right now dog whistling to the types who would like to see him executed.

It really is a sorry state of affairs over there.

valoren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120360864#Comment_120360864

Twitter was the platform Bouzy focused on. In response, that same platform rebutted the alleged co-ordination. iirc they blocked/suspended some accounts which violated their policies. The major co-ordinated, interconnected campaign of disseminating hate was a nothing burger. You're dismissing contradictory evidence since it obviously doesn't align with your view point. And you're the one calling me a conspiracy theorist i.e. precisely the conduct such people engage in. No doubt there have been death threats and in fact Dr Shola received one a few weeks ago purportedly from a white supremacy group. The irksome part is this lazy trend of lumping people being critical in with the crazy balmpots who are out there. It's a problem for all high profile people. I would be on the side of Charles/William stumping up private security costs for his son and his family regardless of his grievances.

Karppi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120360903#Comment_120360903

I think it's a bit more nuanced and subtle than that. RAVEC basically decides who should get security protection, ie they decide who is in the bubble. The security services undertake risk and threat assessment to determine what level of security (24 hr close, armed protection - Charles, William, etc ; only while undertaking Royal duties, not full time - eg Princess Anne, Prince Edward - and so on). They've already formed a view and Harry's taking them to court. We shall see what happens.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120361385#Comment_120361385

You're dismissing contradictory evidence since it obviously doesn't align with your view point.

By all means in your own time link to this evidence that refutes the study.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120361889#Comment_120361889

It's far from nuanced or subtle, the security was pulled because he was no longer a working Royal, that decision should be solely based on threat levels.

valoren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120362535#Comment_120362535

From the Washington Post. Four of the 55 primary accounts pinpointed by the Bot Sentinel report were suspended for violating the platforms policies. Twitter said it found no evidence of “widespread coordination, the use of multiple accounts by single people, or other platform manipulation tactics.” You left that bit out initially and dismissed it when it was pointed out.

If they suspended four accounts then why not the other 51 “problematic” accounts?

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120362636#Comment_120362636

Seriously? extremism and hate makes Twitter a lot of money, it's the reason Space Karen has watered down the moderation.

It's an absolute cesspit.

Again, not just my opinion.

But it is interesting you are now up the hill trying to defend it. Not one I'd be dying on TBH.

valoren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120362711#Comment_120362711

Yet pre-Musk with the moderation not as watered down Bouzy, from all Twitter accounts, identified 55 accounts yet only 4 were reprimanded. Hardly compelling. I read up about it and can't find the criteria he uses to define what a "toxic troll" is in this fight against disinformation and ferreting out harrassment. There would at least be some methodology at work. From what I gather it is entirely subjective. I guess doing a study based on that rationale would help in trying to shut down those critical accounts/users/pages which have a large audience. Would it be possible that someone could provide a service for a clients to try and shut down critics? Of course it would be.

As an aside, Bouzy tried labelling a YouTuber lawyer as a disruptive/twitter troll because he was posting/tweeting thoughts and opinions in live streams to 250k subscribers against Amber Heards defence during the trial. Bouzy said he isn’t a real lawyer, that as an ex-cop he planted evidence and revealed the lawyers real name. Understandably he is in the process of suing Bouzy and part of the lawyers argument is that Heard was/is a client of Bot Sentinel, that consequently he was paid to smear him. Will be paying attention to what happens.

valoren

https://youtu.be/tMG4-qRYXmc

Explains the background.

In short Bot Sentinel is a paid for "hit job" for those needing a PR boost.

dogbert27

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120362872#Comment_120362872

I see Bouzy is going with the Tucker Carlson defence of "no reasonable person would believe what I say as fact" it's just my opinion...

Markle and Bouzy relationship is no different to Trump and Carlson

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120362872#Comment_120362872

Sorry but was has the Lawtube grifter have to do with the very real insidious misogynistic racist violent hate spread about Meghan Markle?

valoren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120364909#Comment_120364909

Oh the (actual) lawyer is a grifter now and not Bouzy. This is beyond tiresome. It's applicable because Bot Sentinel is the grift. Why do Harry and Meghan have to employ, or not employ or actually do employ or actually don't employ a career grifter to create a refuted "report" about harassment if there is ample and legit proof of this actual hate/misogyny out there? It's like the director of a netflix series having to resort to using completely unrelated footage and pictures to give the impression of media harassment and intrusion. One might think base positive and negative attention and criticism (which is applicable to any high profile individuals btw) is being deliberately amplified to conjure up a victim narrative.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365008#Comment_120365008

Why do Harry and Meghan have to employ, or not employ or actually do employ or actually don't employ a career grifter to create a refuted

Huh?

😕

valoren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365052#Comment_120365052

From the video. Bouzy originally said Harry and Meghan were clients. Then he denied they were. Did they hire Bouzy or was he reporting independently.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365175#Comment_120365175

Nate the "Lawyers" video? 😂

You are going to snap both hamstrings with this ridiculous stretching.

If you have tangible actual evidence that they hired this guy post it up. Not that it invalidates the findings.

I suspect it's in the same conspiracy pot as they pay paps to take their photo though, correct?

valoren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365222#Comment_120365222

Why are you putting lawyer in quotes? Inferring this guy isn't a lawyer are you? You should contact Bouzy with the proof.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365263#Comment_120365263

Because normal Lawyers practice actual law, not Youtube Law which appears nothing more than a grift.

But the important part is you are just spreading more conspiracy theories, or lies as they used be known, correct?

valoren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365342#Comment_120365342

I'm a liar now? I'll add that to conspiracy theorist. Elsewhere I've been called a west brit boot licking monarchist, a racist, a misogynist, a hater, a gullible moron for talking about the exact same things I talk about here. It is frankly weird how being critical and pointing out blatant inconsistencies and hypocrisies with the Sussexes provokes such responses.

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365478#Comment_120365478

I said you were spreading lies, not that you were a liar.

You didn't make it up.

We have established they are lies right, I mean that's not up for debate is it?

valoren

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365486#Comment_120365486

To clarify. What is the lie here?

Boggles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120365543#Comment_120365543

The "YouTuber lawyer" (your phrase) claiming they hired the firm.