Prince Harry: An unhealthy digital world led to ‘a literal attack on democracy’

Britain's Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in South Africa

Prince Harry gave a new interview to Fast Company about one of the larger issues he and his wife will be working on for years: healthier social media and a fairer internet. It’s a big issue and it’s not something that someone can just dip in and out of, honestly. Terrorists are radicalized on the internet, and coups are planned on social media. Kids and adults are bullied, harassed, threatened and doxxed on the internet. There are so many places on the internet which operate as the Wild West, with little to no governance or ethical standards. Just a few weeks ago, with the Capitol siege, we saw an event which was the culmination of years of digital fascist propaganda, racist hate speech on the internet, and online radicalization. You can read Harry’s full interview here. Some highlights:

His Fast Company essay six months ago warned of what happened at the Capitol: “When I wrote that piece, I was sharing my view that dominant online platforms have contributed to and stoked the conditions for a crisis of hate, a crisis of health, and a crisis of truth. And I stand by that, along with millions of others who see and feel what this era has done at every level—we are losing loved ones to conspiracy theories, losing a sense of self because of the barrage of mistruths, and at the largest scale, losing our democracies. The magnitude of this cannot be overstated, as noted even by the defectors who helped build these platforms. It takes courage to stand up, cite where things have gone wrong, and offer proposals and solutions.

It’s personal to him: “I was really surprised to witness how my story had been told one way, my wife’s story had been told one way, and then our union sparked something that made the telling of that story very different. That false narrative became the mothership for all of the harassment you’re referring to. It wouldn’t have even begun had our story just been told truthfully. But the important thing about what we experienced is that it led to us hearing from so many others around the world. We’ve thought a lot about those in much more vulnerable positions than us, and how much of a need there is for real empathy and support. To their own degree, everyone has been deeply affected by the current consequences of the digital space. It could be as individual as seeing a loved one go down the path of radicalisation or as collective as seeing the science behind the climate crisis denied. We are all vulnerable to it, which is why I don’t see it as a tech issue, or a political issue—it’s a humanitarian issue.

Creating a better digital world: “The avalanche of misinformation we are all inundated with is bending reality and has created this distorted filter that affects our ability to think clearly or even understand the world around us. What happens online does not stay online—it spreads everywhere, like wildfire: into our homes and workplaces, into the streets, into our minds. The question really becomes about what to do when news and information sharing is no longer a decent, truthful exchange, but rather an exchange of weaponry. The answer I’ve heard from experts in this space is that the common denominator starts with accountability. There has to be accountability to collective wellbeing, not just financial incentive. It’s hard for me to understand how the platforms themselves can eagerly take profit but shun responsibility.

A shared accountability too: “There also has to be common, shared accountability. We can call for digital reform and debate how that happens and what it looks like, but it’s also on each of us to take a more critical eye to our own relationship with technology and media. To start, it doesn’t have to be that complicated. Consider setting limits on the time you spend on social media, stop yourself from endlessly scrolling, fact-check the source and research the information you see, and commit to taking a more compassionate approach and tone when you post or comment. These might seem like little things, but they add up.

On the Capitol siege: “We have seen time and again what happens when the real-world cost of misinformation is disregarded. There is no way to downplay this. There was a literal attack on democracy in the United States, organised on social media, which is an issue of violent extremism. It is widely acknowledged that social media played a role in the genocide in Myanmar and was used as a vehicle to incite violence against the Rohingya people, which is a human rights issue. And in Brazil, social media provided a conduit for misinformation which ultimately brought destruction to the Amazon, which is an environmental and global health issue. In a way, taking a predominately hands-off approach to problems for so long is itself an exercise in power.

[From Fast Company]

What surprises me is that so much of what has happened in the past month has been something of a grand experiment in both directions. The terrorists who committed insurrection on the Capitol were conducting a violent experiment on the state of American democracy, and the resilience of the republic. On the other side, the social media companies that decided to deplatform Donald Trump and his Nazi minions en masse were also conducting an experiment: to see if they could effectively deplatform those people and what would happen next. The results of both experiments have been grotesque and fascinating. For one, I think social media companies *did* learn that they had more power than they initially believed, and they had more liability too. As for the Capitol terrorists who were largely radicalized by Trump and the internet… we still don’t know the half of it.

Anyway, I like that Harry is trying and that he and Meghan are using their platforms to draw attention to work being done by other groups too.

Prince Harry and Jon Bon Jovi record Invictus Games charity single at Abbey Road

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red.

Related stories

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

66 Responses to “Prince Harry: An unhealthy digital world led to ‘a literal attack on democracy’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    Loved everything he said here – and it’s all true. I especially loved the bit about how what happens online doesn’t stay online. It’s so easy to think of social media as something that happens in a vacuum, but it’s not.

    • Bettyrose says:

      Becks1 x1000000! It’s still a bit surreal to me that Harry is here in the U.S. commenting on current day issues …while his anachronistic family continues to exist in a bygone era… like, I’m struggling with picturing W & K having complex thoughts on the impact of modern technology on political dynamics … but I welcome it.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      Harry’s interview was well thought out and well articulated. But social media platforms are o a knife edge now. The power they have to spread disinformation and radicalise is way too much. I expect to see some lawsuits being brought against them by governments and even some of the insurrectionists like they did against Bill Gates and Steve Jobs etc

  2. Amy Bee says:

    I thought it was a really good interview and you can tell Harry has really learned a lot about the issue. Oftentimes when royals speak, you get the sense that their interest in an issue is not very deep and that their interventions are done to appear to be involved but not with Harry and Meghan. That came out in their Time 100 talks video too. I’ve noticed that very few in the royal rota picked up the story. How could they anyway, they traffic in misinformation and untruths on a daily basis? I liked how Harry called out the Times of London for its bogus social media story. I was looking for a response from the journalist who wrote that story but as expected, there was none. After what happened at the Capitol, their plea before the election to people to beware of misinformation aged very well. The tabloids who were complaining about it look like fools now.

    • VS says:

      I 100% agree;

      “you get the sense that their interest in an issue is not very deep and that their interventions are done to appear to be involved but not with Harry and Meghan.” — I think this is because they recognize that there are experts in fields and let those speak.

      Look at how we struggled with the donald in the us as far as Covid was concerned; the guy was listening to morons and parroting their BS lines as if they were the truth. If only we had Dr Fauci speak the truth from the beginning…….

      • Becks1 says:

        I also think with many royals, they get a pass for the less-than-deep interest/analysis/knowledge because they’re doing so much. Like Anne – I dont expect her to be an expert at every engagement, that’s not realistic. Even Charles, while he does have his areas of knowledge (I’m reluctant to say “expertise”), does a lot more in terms of visits/engagements than just those areas. So no one expects the royals to have more than that that shallow depth of knowledge and interest. (that’s without getting into the idea of shining a spotlight on experts, which is clearly what H&M plan to do with their foundation – let the experts lead the way.)

        But its really obvious with W&K, because they dont have those high numbers – they ARENT going to 5 engagements a day, or traveling constantly, even just around England, or meeting hundreds of people a week. There is no reason for them to have that shallow knowledge considering how few causes they support and how few charities they are involved with. I bet you could ask Kate who was the head of EACH and she couldnt tell you.

    • Kalana says:

      I like that he called out Royah without even bothering to name her. No, the takeaway is the Times is a Murdoch paper and this not the first time Royah has lied.

      • My Two Cents says:

        Kalana, yes, people really liked that he is willing to take Rupert Murdoch on. Well done, Harry! Funny how Roya hasn’t written about this news. I hope they continue to sue them all each time they lie. I realize this would become a fulltime job, but still, I am ready for some justice!

  3. Darla says:

    Well that was a very interesting interview.

    • Killfanora says:

      And an intelligent one too. An answer to those reporters who constantly try to show Harry as a bit thick and easily led by a more educated wife. Harry can think for himself British newspapers!

    • Mac says:

      Far right organizing and violence has been a problem in the US since the formation of the the Klan in 1865. Technology is not the root cause. Systemic racism and white supremacy are the root causes. Until we address those, policing social media will have little impact on the problem.

      • Laura says:

        You are absolutely correct in that systematic racism is the underlying problem for so many things, but that doesn’t mean we should try to fix other things like the toxic online landscape too.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        Yes, since the founding of this country violence against others by those who came and took and then brought others to do the work has been a problem. Still, the current state of misinformation and the platforms that speed that information forth are currently doing more damage than anything we’ve ever seen before this and the problem is Accelerating faster than we can even understand it.

        White supremacy will likely always be a problem in the West and while we MUST fight it, we can’t ignore the other issues that exasperate that problem and the owners of these platforms need to be held accountable for that. No one is trying to limit free speech, but if you allow an instrument to deliberately speed the spread of untruth while suppressing the truth because the untruth garner more profit, that’s a problem. Those who are trafficking in contributing to that situation needs to be asked to stop and to at the very least do better or face consequences or who knows where this could lead.

      • Chelsea says:

        You’re 100% right that white supremacy has been an issue since the US’ start but ther3 has been study that have shown that social media has aggravated the issue so i think if you wanr to get to the issue of white supremacy in this day and age you have to address the role that social media plays in radicalization and organizing. I appreciate that Archewell is supporting organzations that are working on the issues of racial inequality alongside social media.

  4. Ginger says:

    I really loved this interview he gave. His intelligence shines through. I’m glad misinformation and online hate is something they will work on. Something needs to be done. I also love how he called out Roya’s ridiculous article about them quitting social media.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      It was a good interview – and it showed that Harry is a lot more intelligent and informed than what has been his public image since he became an adult (i.e. the lovable but dim party prince).

      • Mads says:

        Agreed. Me thinks the British Media has been misrepresenting Harry all these years. Intentionally. Not a simple man at all. He is actually thoughtful, industrious, and intelligent.
        Whenever the picture is posted of the family leaving the infamous Commonwealth Service, I love the fierce look on Harry’s face. He is the warrior prince of that family. Wills is a weakling comparatively, and that is the real source of all this strife. The the second born is more worthy, and primogeniture is crap.

      • Nyro says:


        That was Harry’s role on the reality show, Keeping Up With the Windsors. William can only be “the smart one” if Harry’s “the dumb one”. Anyone who’s watched them even a little can see that Baldy is an incurious doofus of a dipshit type of fellow. He’s not bright but that doesn’t matter. His role, as an heir and future king, is to be the smartest in the bunch, regardless of if it’s true or not. Harry’s disrupting their storyline more than ever.

  5. Esmom says:

    On one and I feel like his take is accurate but on the other hand one of his solutions, self-policing, seems a bit naive. But maybe he’s right, maybe little steps can make a difference. I know people who signed off social media for good after the Capitol insurrection, realizing the “good” that keeps people on like family photos and updates is not worth all the “bad” the platforms have wrought.

    I wish I know how to solve this massive crisis. It’s like watching a train wreck and being absolutely helpless to stop it. This weekend I decided to call out some FB acquaintances for their bullsh^t about Biden’s “radical socialist agenda” and all it got me was taunts that I needed to “educate myself” and that Trump was “the best president our country’s ever had.” People are so far gone.

    • Darla says:

      Yes they are. I’m rarely on FB but I did pull back from Twitter. It’s so negative! It sucks you into a blackhole. I’ve really changed my internet habits. I come here in the mornings, and then that’s it. I get to work. It’s changing how I feel. At some point I may delete my Twitter all together.

      • SarahCS says:

        I agree with both of you, we can look at what is within our control. I never had twitter and stopped using facebook last year. That was hard in some ways as I miss the loose connections with former colleagues and more distant friends, especially with all the pandemic lockdowns and restrictions but it turns out I’m just fine without it.

        Having said that I do still go on IG most days but the account I run is pictures of my cat and I follow travel, lots of other cats (some dogs) and random things like the ‘charcutewreath’ hashtags. No negativity, lots of pretty pictures and wildlife.

      • Snuffles says:

        Out of all the social media platforms, I hate Facebook the most. I never post but I’m on there to keep up with friends and family. This past year between the pandemic and the election, I could literally feel my blood pressure spiking every time I went on. I had to unfollow anything “news” related. And I still despise it. Especially now that I learned that they track your off Facebook activities which has horrified me.

        I still enjoy Instagram because I like pictures and I find it easier to curate my feed. Twitter is a double edged sword. It drives me bananas but it can also make me laugh my ass off. Especially “Black Twitter”. I’ve decided to unfollow a lot of accounts and create topic based lists instead. Like, I have a list for the Biden Administration, local news and information, my Sussex Squad, BTS, etc. It helps.

      • Regina Falangie says:

        Yeah, I had a business page on Facebook but never had a personal page. It’s too toxic. I deleted my business page because I’m so disgusted in Facebook. I have my eye on Tweeters. We have to hit them where it hurts and show them that we demand better.

        Delete Facebook Challenge:

    • Lemons says:

      I think self-policing essentially means learning to think critically, which many people have lost the ability to do with the ease of access to “information” or never had in the first place. As many in my generation were told, we can’t believe everything we read on the internet.

      Somewhere along the line, that changed and now the gutter trash of the internet is now somehow a clue in a conspiracy. I blame boomers and their chain emails. That generation has clearly NEVER had to think critically, and it shows.

      • JT says:

        Yeah I think he’s saying to think critically about where you are consuming your information and what is the substance of it. Kind of like what we do here. One of the first things asked on CB is “where is this coming from?” Also, so many people get caught up in the headline and then parrot it, not even reading the substance of the article. Or many people just ignore that said article contains so many lies on things that can be proven. Like H&M “quitting” SM; that was the headline across a dozen sites even though they had no SM to quit.

      • Esmom says:

        Lemons, Boomers and their chain emails is the perfect analogy. That is what FB really is. Some of my fellow Gen Xers from grade school are as bad as Boomers with their incessant, mindless posting of crazy, weird and untruthful right wing memes. They honestly think they are informed and informing people.

        I do have hope that the younger generations, digital natives, are better about discerning BS and not believing every single thing they see online. I know my college age kids and their friends are, thanks in large part to the media literacy skills that their teachers imparted to them beginning in middle school. They know FB is a cesspool, it’s a joke to them.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I think we also need to confront that Russia has effectively weaponized social media as a global tool of propaganda and misinformation in order to damage our democracies. The West has slept on this issue and we are now reaping the poisonous rewards. That needs to be countered – I don’t know how but governmental intelligence agencies (all over the world but especially in the West – bc that’s where Putin is messing with things in non-military ways) need to take this seriously.

      • Pommom says:

        You are so cute. Later boomer here. We were the last generation to be taught critical thinking skills in school. Sucks to be part of the later generations.

        I didn’t know other boomers did chain emails you know why? Because I never opened a Facebook account in the first place. Those pesky critical thinking skills again.
        I despise Mark Z and his whole “Isn’t it wonderful that I am giving you this wonderful free platform to keep up with friends and family”. Nothing is free. I never have nor will I ever join any social media he owns despite great pressure from friends and family. How many of you non boomers can say that?

        I had to actually block any regular emails from a certain relative many years ago way before dim Donny because they would forward any old crazy right wing propaganda.Of course, they love DT. I am on other social media, MZ is too much of a creep. Never will l put a dime in his pocket.

    • Carmen-JamRock says:

      O dear. @esmom I think you did exactly what H is railing against: read a headline, come to a conclusion, then feverishly post uninformed opinions abt the entire article, just from the headline. Because otherwise, you couldnt hv come away believing anything he said in that very well reasoned interview is “naive.” smh

      ETA: H&M, as usual, are not just talking the talk abt the crisis wrought by the free-for-all on the net. Based on info on their site and many of their utterances, theyre working with folks like Tristan Harris of Human Tech and Dr. Safiya Noble to fund their research into creating a more humane internet. I wouldnt be surprised if H&M are revealed to be among the owners of this new internet.
      I wouldnt be surprised also to learn that H&M are also working with Sir Timothy John Berners-Lee, inventor of the www and currently working on a new one.

      Chk him out here:

      • VS says:

        @Carmen-JamRock — I hereby declare my love for your post……….exactly; because editors know some people only pay attention to headlines, those have become more and more unhinged and absolutely not reflective of the article…….as Meghan called it, it is the “business of attention”

      • Esmom says:

        Carmen-Jam-Rock, JFC, I read more than a headline and all I did was express skepticism that people could individually change their social media habits enough to effectively combat the dangerous disinformation that’s been pumped out for so long. I have no criticism of Harry’s interview otherwise except that small comment. A bit sensitive, are you?

  6. Maliksmama says:

    Harry’s really blossoming with Meghan. His speaking, and interviews, and writing has improved exponentially.

    • Amy Bee says:

      I believe this Harry was always there and there were times were when he spoke on issues, he took it as far as could as royal but his position prevented him from going further and saying what he really wanted to say. Now that he’s no longer part of the family, he’s free to say what he wants.

    • Jan says:

      We are incredibly influenced by who we spend time with time. As a teacher you can change so much with just a seating chart. Surround someone with unmotivated students who good off and you get one result, but surround that same person with highly motivated and engaged students and that person will completely change because the behaviors being modeled are completely different and the conversations being had are completely different. On the other side let people be surrounded online and steered to with algorithms a bunch of conspiracy theorist and that person’s thinking will change as well.

      • Snuffles says:


        100% agree. I think The Firm knows this and this is why they were terrified of Meghan. And why they close ranks and lull family members into compliance with free estates to live on and allowances from the Queen and Prince Charles. That’s why RRs lose their shit when Harry talks to media and journalists outside of their system.

        I still think Harry was on his way out long before he met Meghan. Before Meghan it was the Army that showed him a different world. And his extensive time in Africa. Meghan and her world was just the final push that gave him the strength to break free.

      • Myra says:

        Now that you mentioned the seating chart, it makes sense why my teachers used to seat non-performing students next to me.

        I have to say Prince Harry would make an interesting movie story, not because of his position as a prince, but because of the growth in his character. He was a cheeky boy who went down a dark path after the passing away of his mother. After being exposed to people from all walks of life, no doubt humbled by his own public scandals and later on meeting a passionate and intelligent woman, he has completely turned his life around. He still faces challenges today but he deals with them in a healthy and mature way.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      I do think that Meghan’s excellent in certain areas has had a positive effect on Harry, but I do believe he was always much better than he was previously portrayed. One of the things I’ve come to learn from watching the royals since Meghan’s arrival is how much the not heirs have to mute themselves in difference to the heirs. I believe that Harry was deliberately presented as dumb in order to prop up William and he often accepted that portrayal, but it wasn’t true. I will never forget the line during the engagement interview when Harry said pointedly, “or think they know” who he is. I think we are seeing the real Harry since he stepped down as a senior working royal and that’s why there are all these articles talking about overshadowing of the others. The royal rota spent so many years putting together this narrative that’s turning out to be false about the BRF.

      • Amy Too says:

        That would make sense just based on the fact that Meghan fell in love with him. If he was really such a silly, stupid, poorly spoken, unintelligent, incurious, and privileged jerk who wasn’t very interested in doing any work then she wouldn’t have liked him enough to pursue a relationship with and if he was just a basic nice guy that she couldn’t have a deep conversation with about tricky issues then I don’t think she would have fallen in love with him. So yeah, this must be the real Harry and he now feels comfortable enough to show this side to the world and to express his true feelings on “controversial” issues.

      • MaryContrary says:

        @Amy Too-I was coming on to say the same thing. She might have dated him for a bit-but she would not have married him and taken on the role if he wasn’t someone interesting and intelligent.

      • Amy Bee says:

        @AmyToo: I agree with you. Meghan would not have given Harry the time of day, if he did not share the same beliefs and values as her. So when people say Harry has changed since he met Meghan that’s not true. The public and press thought they knew who he was but they were wrong. Some of the views he has expressed since marrying Meghan are those he had before he even met her. The press just didn’t listen to what he was saying.

  7. Cali says:

    Love that he’s using the real life example of toxic online culture presenting itself literally and dangerously in real life. No more of the “sticks and stones may break my bones” crap. Allowing online bullying is harmful and dangerous in many forms and it’s what he and Meghan have been dealing with the since beginning of their relationship with no intervention from the Palace. Keep dragging them Harry.

    • SarahCS says:

      I thought the point about his and his wife’s stories being told in very different ways was very pointed and far more direct than what would have been ‘allowed’ in the BRF. Bravo Harry, keep going.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        Yeah, I loved that part too. It’s true, no one can truthfully argue otherwise and their experience has informed their passion for this work. I love that he continues to mention having spoken to others who has had similar experience or worse.

  8. ABritGuest says:

    This was a really thoughtful interview for the ‘dumb’ royal..maybe he’s like Diana in that way -didn’t do great academically but has worked to develop knowledge in areas he’s interested in. Must be freeing to work with journalists outside of the rota & who aren’t just interested in dumb gossip. I bet the Firm ends up trying to follow this model & work outside the rota more.

    As Amy said above his earlier article & the Time 100 talk on this issue which talked about misinformation & dangers online were spot on. I like that the Sussexes have obviously been speaking to many people on this issue but he makes clear he’s not an expert& Archewell is trying to support those who are experts, to develop solutions. They also gave experts the spotlight at that time talk.

    Pretty ballsy to actually name Rupert Murdoch especially given how feared he is by politicians etc. But Murdoch orgs have been right at the heart of this misinformation crisis whether it’s around Trump or Covid.

    • JT says:

      I agree. Academics and degrees aren’t everything. Look at W&K, both graduated from prestigious schools but they are both dumb. Yeah I said it. They are both stupid. Harry is actually very intelligent and I think the public has been misinformed about this as well. You don’t suddenly become articulate overnight.
      You care also correct in saying that we need to be calling these people out like Harry has done. I’m tired of people acting like they don’t know where this is coming from. The Murdoch papers have heavily influenced where we are now and it’s time people start saying so. There should be regulations on these sites.

      • Ginger says:

        Harry strikes me as a visual learner. His military career is proof of that. He was highly regarded. It was clear Harry was held back because he wasn’t allowed to be smarter than William.

        William and Kate like to give off the vibe that they are both genius because they went to University but just listening to them speak is proof that they are anything but.

        I used to worked for a doctor and he was the dumbest person. He had zero common sense.

      • tcbc says:

        William only got into a prestigious school because he’s a prince. And Kate is cautionary tale of what happens when a woman puts all her focus on shallow things. I don’t know how bright she was to begin with, but she’s a dim bulb now.

      • Lauren says:

        There are stories out there about Kate’s time at Saint Andrew’s. Not flattering in the least. Allegedly she would copy her assignments off from other people, didn’t even realise when they were writing wrong answers on purpose.

      • Sunnee says:

        Also look at the orange dum dum. He graduated from Wharton, part of U of P. Jared graduated from Harvard. Degrees from prestigious institutions does not mean that they’re intellectual. I believe in higher education 100% but it is not a litmus test. I had a BF who was a TA at Stanford. He was surprised at what students got away with.
        Many with money game the system. My SIL graduated from an Ivy League Law school yet She was at my house ( thousands of miles away) hanging out DURING the semester. I asked her why she wasn’t in school she garbled something. Subsequently It took her 7 tries to pass the bar. My sister graduated from a less prestigious law school and aced it first try. Money had its own rules. TRUST.

      • Lady D says:

        Ginger, I transcribed for a doctor who said “uh” every third word of the report. One memorable two sentence paragraph had 21 “uh’s” in it. When you get paid by the word, those uh’s cost time and money.

    • Prof Trelawney says:

      I was just thinking this, how Diana herself thought she wasn’t smart, but really I think it was her emotional intelligence that led her to some really smart initiatives like landmines. But I remember how the BRF criticized, or at least questioned, her even for that. The diff here is that Harry is building a new, much more independent platform to use his emotional intelligence effectively. So much growth, I think his mother would be so proud.

    • MM2 says:

      Some people’s minds aren’t best suited to learn from sitting in a classroom & taking tests, while they can be brilliant. This idea that being poor in one way of schooling makes them automatically dumb or stupid is dumb & stupid.

  9. Harper says:

    Minds are extremely susceptible. People want to be part of a greater something, and when they find a cause online, or someone to “other” online, and jump on the bandwagon, it feels good. It provides a connection. In the case of the online bullying of Harry and Meghan, their foes (Royal family, courtiers, Royal Rota) created a narrative regarding them that was completely manufactured by the individual editors and the individual writers who twisted the headlines and texts of the stories.

    If you look at the public actions of Harry and Meghan and compare that to the online reporting of said actions, it is like crazy town. Fiction. Completely made up yet fed to the public and swallowed whole. Rinse, repeat until you have a country that believes Harry and Meghan are horrible people and are spewing their hate in the comments section on all kinds of outlets. Never forget that the reporting all starts with individual writers and editors making a conscious decision every day to use inflammatory words to describe noninflammatory events. Look at how they twisted the fact that Meghan ate avocado toast and linked it to murder and droughts. And this is the mind control power that the Royal family members gave the press the go-ahead to be used on H&M.

  10. Sofia says:

    I loved that he actually called out Rupert Murdoch by name. And second, I understand what he’s saying. He’s not saying that social media is the devil and we all should quit but he’s saying that there are ways to use it that don’t contribute to misinformation and ways to improve it.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      Yes, calling out Rupert Murdoch was ballsy and I’m happy someone has. This man wheels too much power in media without any checks and balances and he has caused a lot of destruction without accountability. The least that can happen is that he is called out and at least some people now link him to a big part of the problem with misinformation. Until those who own the platforms see the benefit in doing things differently nothing will really change, but hopefully some are starting to see and will take steps to doing better.

  11. carmen says:

    Solid interview and unlike his brother, he comes across as being intelligent and well-versed in the topics at hand. Whenever I hear William speak, I walk away scratching my head wondering what he just said – not that he is difficult to understand, but there is absolutely no depth to what he says.

  12. Beth says:

    Reading this, it’s easy to see why Duke and Duchess Do Nothing are mad that he got married-he sounds informed, relatable, and empathetic. With Harry gone, it’s obvious the Cambridge’s have none of those things, which is why all their endeavors ring so hollow and useless.

  13. candy says:

    More than 10 years ago in grad school, I studied the fringe world of internet policy. At that point, there were a ton of start ups and lobbyists on K street advocating for these same causes. It’s great to see M&H draw attention to this massive issue – regulating the internet in a way that balances free speech and safety, while protecting non commercial interests, is going to take many years and lots of thoughtful work. But awareness is the first step.

  14. L4frimaire says:

    I real,y liked the interview and how he called out Murdoch. He was also quite willing to say he consults experts in this field because while he knows what it’s like to be the subject of social media distortions, he doesn’t have all the answers. Like other people, while it was really necessary to deplatform these hate groups in wake of the Capitol riot coup attempt, it does raise issues in future for democracy and free speech, and giving these companies do much power of the public space. I think this is more like,y to target left wing groups abd those who advocate for free speech. Facebook had Ben told for ages how right wing groups organized on their site and they did nothing, while they were quick to ban feminists, MeToo or BLM activists who called out these problematic groups. Will be an ongoing tug of war and Harry is right in there.

  15. one of the Marys says:

    Wow, this is how you champion a cause. My God imagine if Kate spoke about early years with such depth and insight and passion. My God I’m just gobsmacked reading this. Every new ‘appearance’ by the Sussexes demonstrates why they were pushed out and why they had to leave. I will be watching Archewell with great interest and watching the royal family like a soap opera.

    • Alexandria says:

      One of the Marys, I was also gobsmacked when I read this interview. Harry’s passion and his desire to learn came across so clearly here. He is so much more than I thought. Social media is still a new phenomenon that we and governments are grappling with. Just like the Gates are major influencers on vaccination, and his mother and Elton John are on AIDS, might I say that Harry may be a major force behind responsible social media, its impact on mental health and online bullying? 10 years later, he may be sitting on expert panels on this topic? Governments may refer to work that experts have worked on because Harry / Archewell highlighted or funded their work?

      Wow. It’s just wow. Go Harry!

      Also I loved he called out Murdoch. More governments need to!

  16. Over it says:

    Can I just say from a totally vanity point of view, reading Harry interview and looking at his picture makes him all the more yummy

  17. BnLurkN4eva says:

    Here’s the Harry the BM didn’t want you to meet. They pushed the dim party prince with gusto but is not who he is and he’s showing us who he is now outside of that toxic atmosphere call the BRF and their mouthpieces in the British media.

    • Carmen-JamRock says:

      Hear, hear!

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Exactly. Even with the continued attacks from the British media, I can’t imagine how refreshing it probably feels for Harry to be out of that environment and to actually be taken seriously.

  18. blunt talker says:

    Prince Harry called it out in the correct manner-Some of these platforms are very dark and twisted with no corrections to them-People believe what they read and hear as facts-The storm troopers at the Capitol use some very vile and evil sites to disperse information- Harry speaking on this topic shows he and Meghan are well informed about this issue- I hope everyone look up Murdock company and see all the tabloid rags he owns-Daily Mail, Daily Express, New Idea, and Fox News and then some-So if you are reading some article it may come from his media with their own personal slants. I give Harry props for this interview-he hit the nail on the head.