Wednesday 27 October 2021

Meghan Reads 'The Bench' on Brightly Storytime & Report Lays Bare Anti-Meghan Social Media Campaign

Good evening! The Duchess of Sussex made a surprise appearance -- the first time we've seen her since the Sussexes' whirlwind visit to New York last month -- for a special reading of The Bench on Brightly Storytime. Reading from her gorgeous garden in Montecito, Meghan introduced herself and discussed the inspiration behind the book: "I'm Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. I wrote this as a poem for my husband and our son, Archie, and then turned it into a book so you could enjoy it, too."

Meghan discussed the process of creating the illustrations and the amazing work of Christian Robinson before proceeding with the reading. Afterwards, Meghan said, "I hope you're able to go and find your own special bench, or chair or a little quiet nook — just a place that means something to you that you can share with someone you love."


Brightly are passionate about raising children who love to read. They believe reading has the "power to illuminate kids’ lives and connect families by facilitating a space in which children and the adults in their lives can spend quality time together". They provide parents, caregivers and educators tools, tips and recommendations, and take pride in working with a diverse group of authors and contributors.


I enjoyed seeing the lists they curate including a monthly theme. October's is gratitude.


It follows news Meghan gifted each child at the Assistance League of LA pre-school a personal copy of the book. The pre-school said the children were overjoyed, adding, "Thank you to The Archewell Foundation for this donation and your continued support of the League and L.A.’s most vulnerable children."


Harry and Meghan marked the 23rd anniversary of Diana's passing by helping students at the school replant their garden ahead of term, commencing with a plethora of seeds, including Diana's favourite forget-me-not.

The Duchess wore a pale blue shirt and jeans with familiar accessories, including Diana's Cartier Tank watch.

Embed from Getty Images

And Cartier Love bracelet.


************

Before signing off tonight, I also wanted to share the findings of a new analytics report compiled by Bot Sentinel on the hate-fueled, coordinated smear campaign against the Duchess of Sussex on Twitter. The most shocking finding? 83 accounts are behind 70% of the abusive tweets. More from the Guardian:

'The Duchess of Sussex, who has said she avoids social media for “my own self-preservation”, has been the subject of a coordinated hate and misinformation campaign on Twitter, according to a new report.

It analysed 114,000 tweets relating to the couple, and identified 83 accounts that it alleged were behind 70% of the more virulent anti-Sussex tweets.

“Our analysis allowed us to isolate 55 single-purpose accounts we identified as the primary hate accounts and 28 secondary hate accounts that mainly amplified the primary accounts,” the report said. With the accounts having a total of 187,631 followers, using analytic tools Bot Sentinel estimated “a combined unique potential reach of 17 million users”.'
BuzzFeed's Ellie Hall spoke to Bot Sentinel CEO Christopher Bouzy who revealed the anti-Meghan campaign is unlike anything his team has seen before:
'Bouzy emphasized that the negative Twitter activity is not fueled by automated bot accounts, but real accounts run by humans.

“This campaign comes from people who know how to manipulate the algorithms, manipulate Twitter, stay under the wire to avoid detection and suspension,” he said. “This level of complexity comes from people who know how to do this stuff, who are paid to do this stuff.”

Bouzy said the users targeting Meghan and Harry are operating “in a more clever way than we normally see.” He said their hateful tweets are mixed in with tweets that do not violate Twitter’s terms of service, making these accounts harder for Bot Sentinel to automatically detect.

Bouzy told BuzzFeed News that it’s easier for these single-purpose anti-Sussex accounts to also avoid detection because they pair their negative content about Harry and Meghan that violate the terms of service with positive comments about other members of the royal family, particularly Harry’s brother and sister-in-law, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.'
'The service found that Twitter had previously suspended many of the accounts, but the users were deploying tactics to avoid suspension, including placing "parody" in their profiles.

"Others would use racist coded language about Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, to avoid detection," Bot Sentinel said in the report. "We also observed several accounts either lock or completely deactivate their profiles to preserve their accounts."

Bot Sentinel also found the Twitter algorithm actively suggested they follow some of the hate accounts after viewing just two of them.

A Twitter spokesperson told BuzzFeed News that they are "actively investigating the information and accounts referenced in this report — we will take action on accounts that violate the Twitter Rules."
For those of us active on social media, the findings of this report will sadly offer nothing new, though it is fascinating and disturbing in equal measure to see the scale of abuse coming from just 83 accounts. It lays bare the state of social media as a whole and the entirely lacking steps taken to tackle online abuse. The Sussexes are currently not active on any social media platform -- something which is evidently the correct choice with the deluge of vitriol continuing.

39 comments:

  1. Meghan has such a fantastic voice for narration or reading aloud! She should do an audiobook (other than The Bench).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wonderful, meaningful appearances. As for the Twitter report, it certainly doesn't surprise me, but yes, the actual stats are alarming. This is the time for social media and its deadly algorithms to be held to account on all issues. It must stop!

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Charlotte- Could you please update your paragraph about the BotSentinel finds. I will say I find it misleading. For example- you quoted Twitter but only the part that supports some findings of the report and not the part that contradicts some of them.
    The mentioned report is from a free non-partisan platform and not an organised analysis. Twitter has looked into it, and only deleted 4 out of the 55 main acounts- till now. They have also not found any evidence of coordination- so it is 79 individual people that dislike Meghan and Harry (to a disturbing degree). They are reviewing those 79 accounts to take "enforcement action, when appropriate, against accounts and content that violate the Twitter Rules, including potential violation of [their] hateful conduct policy and [their] coordinated harmful activitiy policy".
    I am actually very surprised about the number. With how much polarisation there is, I was sure there would be more. Only shows, that most people are obviously still fine to voice criticism but are not obsessed and crazy.
    I also don't get the problem people have with the algorithm here- if I follow two accounts/websites with certain keywords of course I get offered more. That's how all those algorithms work. The problem is that machines are just not as capable to understand the messages written and therefore cannot always detect if they are hateful or not. That is the price we pay if we do not have every comment read by a human moderator before it goes public. Machines only know keywords and phrases after a complicated learning process- often enough still triggered by humans. If the people at the keyboard create a new phrase or bestow a new meaning behind a word or icon, it takes a long time for an algorithm to learn. The only real way to solve that problem (or make it significantly smaller) is either to have fully moderated and therefore massivly scaled back Social Media OR eliminate it all together. Same for blogs or forums, that would need external and objective moderators to check everything that is posted.
    Compnaies also want to make money, that is why most don't care about their users. Sadly, I doubt that politcs will really step in and make them change. There will be a fine, an apology and some minor IT tweaks be done and all is well again till next time.
    Algorithms are also influenced by the bias of the people that code them. That is well known and some companies try to balance it out. But honestly, if you have ever tried to code- there is no way we will ever get that problem solved 100%.
    C.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Twitter has deleted more accounts since the original report, and this has gone farther than I thought it would. At first I thought so what. Tell me something I dont know. But if you look at the actual stats there were one or two accounts tweeting exclusively this stuff three and four hundred times a day. That is not normal, or is it even rational.

      One of them created another account just to tweet personal information about Christopher bouzy to discredit him. So what if he filed bankruptcy in 2019. He runs a crowd sourced company and I bet there aren't many employees. That doesn't affect his findings a bit. This is centering on meghan because one of these people insulted his mother. That was his line in the sand so he looked into it. The data is there for anyone to see.

      I'm not a meghan apologist and I think everyone goes too far at times. But think if someone you know was the victim of an orchestrated hate campaign like this, you would want it stopped and it should be stopped. This was run by a few humans trying to influence opinion, and we should all be concerned about things like this.

      Delete
    2. The thing is, that there has been no valid proof found that this indeed an orchestrated hate campaign. The Bot findings are not exactly what I would call valid data for this interpretation. It’s a good starting point for an in depth analysis though. I do not doubt that those accounts are mostly extreme in their expressions about Meghan. The analyses doesn’t hold for all of them though. At least two are actually some strange hardcore Kate centred accounts. The people running the accounts probably know of each other as they share the same interest and you get automatically accounts suggested that fit your interests. But that’s very different then 79 people setting up a hate network, working closely together to….what exactly? It’s actually quite unclear. Because nothing they do has any real influence.
      Bot Sentinel has had its fair share of criticism for its data interpretation in the past. Twitter has quite clear terms of conduct. They might not be able to check everything but they will check those accounts now and deactivate those that violate the rules. There is nothing more to do. I think some more will disappear but I guess around 50% will stay, because just being nitpicks and highly critical of someone is no reason to be silenced. Hate speech or racist comments will not stand though.
      I also really doubt anything at this point is influencing any opinions anymore. The lines are drawn for about a year now. The community that’s interested in all this is very very small. It has grown about a substantial American group thanks to Meghan but the royal watchers are still a tiny niche. Twitter is also not really as omnipresent as they try to appear. People have made up their mind and I don’t think anyone has swapped sides (if they are invested enough to even have one, that’s an even smaller subminority) over Twitter or tabloids. Some people like what they do, some don’t. Whatever side you fall on, you will find the matching coverage.
      It’s great that Twitter looks into it, and they should have some so the second someone reported those accounts.
      C.

      Delete
    3. The larger point is being missed. Let's assume you're right and there is no coordinated campaign here. Are you comfortable with this type of activity? I'm not. It us ruining social media, distorting actual issues, and making online experiences more toxic. Go tweet one of those people something they font agree with and see how you fare

      Delete
    4. The typos were strong last night. 😬 sorry!

      Delete
    5. I will say look at the companies, schools, organizations, charities, etc that report, tweet, post video or anything about Meghan. There have been haters going on people pages, dms, telling them they'll boycott etc. I've seen this done to Emily for 19th News, NPR, Armchair podcast, Dior, Proctor and Gamble, Harvest Homes, Genesis House, not sure about Teenager Therapy, and many others all because they mention Meghan. Also look at a lot of these anti Meghan hate account they have her name in the profile or a doctored picture of her. Profiting off of hate

      Delete
    6. You have not read the complete report nor understand the data properly. There is undisputed evidence of a smear campaign by a coordinated few who knew how to the algorithms work. To have a better understanding one has to study the statistics within their daily lifecycle to understand the dynamics of the coordination. There are incidences where the "likes" of the negative posts increases at a phenomenal rate without an increase in the associate "views". That is not the result of a non-coordinated activity.

      You must realize that the manipulators have multiple handles and they know how to light the fuses of the smear campaign so that the average person with the the predisposition to hate Meghan become the secondary spreaders. That is no average "Joe".

      Initially Twitter suspended a few and some deactivate their accounts to avoid the suspension; with the progression of time, more accounts are being suspended. There is no way that Twitter would suspend these accounts without valid evidence because it means loss of money.


      Similarly, after Meghan boosted the #KP IG account and started the #sussexroyal IG that set the record of 4 1/2 hours fastest to a million subscribers. The #KP IG seem to be artificially prop up to stay marginally ahead of the #sussexroyal account that eventually caught it before it was retired. Many have use AI to analyze it and they findings are supported because the #KP IG has never experience that phenomenal rate without the Meghan effect. It was absent before Harry started dated Meghan and now it is absent since #sussexroyal is no longer active. It does not take an exceptional person to see the coordination.

      Also, the sussexsquad did a similar analysis and found that about a half dozen "haters" coordinated their hatred so that their "likes" receive a lots of clicks and stay on top of the queue so that the average person sees the the 10% hatred as if it were 90% because the positive posts lack easy visibility.

      The coordination exists on all platforms as will as Youtube. More studies will show that.

      The providers make money from Meghan hatred so they are reluctant to suspend the haters. Money talks.

      Delete
    7. That's exactly the point bluhare! Recall the 'rules of engagement'...they are complete trolls so why even engage with these people. Twitter will keep someone employed full time just dealing with monitoring of idiotic and hate comments all over the board, let them do their job. Rational people are not influenced by these type of opinions, they have used other sources and their own ability to reason and conclude their own decisions on whether they are a supporter of Harry and Meghan or not. It is sad however, that there are those who will distort the issues on many topics much more important to everybody's day to day lives. With great inventions and technology, comes great responsibility, that's the larger point and greater fight.

      Delete
    8. @Felix: I get that you are a big fan of Meghan and that you like to disagree with every comment that criticises her. But I think making assumptions about people's ability to read a report and understand the statistical data (and what thoe numbers actually say and what might be just correlation) is pretty bold.
      The "undisputed" evidence data has indeed been analysed by Twitter and while some claims of BotSentinel hold up, others don't. Many here also refer to the official Twitter report.
      Most handles have been proven to be run by individuals and not the same person. Most if not all handles are also run by humans and are not Bots. There have been acoounts suspended (and rightly so) because their content went against the rules. Twitter has found NO evidence for a coordinated smear campaign. Fullstop.
      And the sussexsquad can be happy that no one as done a similar reseach about them, as they also coordinate their activities to make sure their likes receive lots of clicks to stay on top (which is not a bad thing in general) but some have posted horrific, abusive and threatening stuff under their handles. Still no reason to act as if the sussexsuqad is leading a hate campaign against the Royal family (even though some people love to publicly dream up some horrible scenarios for the Cambridge children).

      Delete
    9. @13:20: This IS a site to support Meghan is it not? So it naturally attracts fans of Meghan so... they will support her when they disagree with a comment. To minorities like myself, she is someone to be admired and a role model. There are plenty of other sites that one may happily engage with other kindred spirits to critic, dissect and tear apart everything Meghan/Sussexes do or say instead of spreading positive vibes and/or helping the community in which they live.

      Delete
  4. It is strange that the Daily Mail and The Sun have not reported yet on the Bot Sentinel findings. Why are they keeping their readers in the dark regarding the coordinated attacks on the Sussex?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. Too incriminating perhaps? Another question: How vocal are Meghan's loudest critics now? Have they (suspiciously) kept their mouths shut or are they still spouting off on their
      TV shows? The plot sickens....

      Delete
    2. It's not strange. This does not fit into their narrative of Meghan that they continue to push. I still remember a photographer said "If she will just meet with us, we can repair their reputation. But if not it will only get worse."

      Delete
    3. Well, they are still in a law suit against them. Everyone and their dog knows they don’t like them. I don’t expect them to report anything that goes against their narrative. I mean honestly, why would they?
      That’s tabloids though. I would be concerned if we were talking about real, renowned newspapers. But they are not, even if they like to act as if they are.
      Just like others refuse to report on the claims from Bot Sentinel that Twitter has clearly debunked because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

      Delete
  5. I’m still waiting to see this picked up by the UK press. The fact that it hasn’t been yet it’s telling. I wonder are all their lawyers scrambling to assess how many stories the ‘reputable’ press picked up that we’re pure BS coming from these accounts.
    Erininnyc

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a beautiful book. Meghan has a lovely voice. Hope she’ll do an audio of this and any other books in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanne, she did do an audio for in English and Spanish for the said versions of the book.

      Delete
    2. Thank you 😊 I did not know…so glad!

      Delete
  7. The combined population of the UK and US is approximately 400,000,000.
    An exposure to 17 million of folks (on twitter), IF they happen to be US and UK citizens is less than 5% of the total population. Said another way... 95% of the real population are not exposed to the negative twitter communication about Meghan and Harry.

    The fictional "twitter verse" is made up of approximately 200,000,000 worldwide and an exposure of 17 million, IF UK and US readers, is less than 10%. Which means 90% of twitter is not exposed to negative content about Harry or Meghan.

    These numbers do not differentiate whether the negative content is VALID or not. In so far as two individuals chose to give a sensational interview to "for profit" entities (Oprah Winfrey, Harpo Productions, and CBS) to speak ill about members of their own immediate famous family in a bid of revenge or to seek visibility for their own future profit has yet to be determined. The only one to immediately profit from that is Oprah, Harpo, and CBS.

    I honestly don't know anyone who has the time or inclination to worry about how Meghan and Harry are faring on a made up platform "Twitter". Most folks don't have trust funds and Netflix/Spotify media deals to sustain them to investigate a matter that has no impact on them whatsoever.

    As ever,
    Florida Moxie



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do people bother to worry about how Harry and Meghan are faring on Twitter? Well for one both their children were targeted racially within days off birth! Danny Baker tweeted a picture likening Archie to a chimpanzee and Julie Burchill tweeted that they should have named their daughter Georgina Flyodina. Just one reason.

      Delete
    2. Take meghan out if the equation and give us your real opinion. 83 accounts were able to reach 17 million people. By your calculations that's a drop in the bucket. Yrue. But what if next time there are 830 accounts. You're now talking 170 million accounts using the same model.

      It's the point that matters not the end result. Look how easily a few lunatics are able to get their message across. If that doesn't scare you. It should

      Delete
    3. Thank you Florida Moxie, well said and statistically relevant. Twitter is only important in the eyes of those who make it important, a colossal waste of everybody's time and thought.

      Delete
    4. I am dumbfounded by the callous attempt to measure the impact of online hate speech purely from the statistical angle and dismissing it cos it reach only 5% to 10 % of the population.

      Delete
    5. It does for anyone that is predispose to love and not hate and is aware of the nature of systemic racism. Among her classmates, collegemates, castmates, and her pre-royal global fanbase Meghan is known to be kind, caring, humble and hilarious. Meghan sent many letters of encouragement to many across the global and they are some of the ones that are livid because the British press attacks relentlessly a nice person. WHY?

      This is the typical attack that accomplished women face and particularly those of color who are disproportionately attack.

      Delete
    6. Easy for you to say, Anonymous. wait until someone finds you online and see how you feel.

      Delete
    7. Not the same anonymous but I am happy to say nobody will find me online.

      Delete
    8. I think the people who were outed by Christopher bouzy may have felt the same way, anonymous.

      Delete
  8. I don't like being pessimistic but I feel for every Meghan hate account Twitter deletes two new ones will surface. And why would any respectable royal reporter interact with such accounts? Interesting...I went down the rabbit hole of royal watching on Twitter for a while and it was SO TOXIC. I'm glad the Sussexes are not on social media and I hope they never decided to join again.

    Gillian

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Gillian, several royal reporters and "experts" interact and retweet them. A royal reporter even tweeted how palace staff call Meghan Megain and several of those accounts cheered that even staff don't like her and call her a name they call her. That group started the hashtag #Me*xit and the media chose to call Harry stepping his family back #Me*xit. These "reporters" even used doctored videos they created to have a go at Meghan

      Delete
  9. Dear Charlotte
    Thank you so much for reporting on this lovely story about Meghan reading The Bench on Brightly Story Time, and donating books to the school where Meghan and Harry had previously planted flowers. I really appreciate their strategy to focus on positivity and supporting others, especially children.
    Thank you also for letting us know about findings on the Twitter attacks against them. This report speaks to the failure of social media companies to maintain any semblance of truth.

    Renee

    ReplyDelete
  10. Charlotte thank you!!! We love Meghan and Harry. Social media does some good but quite a bit promotes hate and misery.

    ReplyDelete
  11. what a lovely book for Meghan the duchess of sussex

    ReplyDelete
  12. Meghan has guts! And she IS the Duchess of Sussex, just like my second-favorite royal, Eugenie, is HRH Princess Eugenie, so criticism for identifying herself on the calls. The paid leave got cut and now I think it's back on the bill that has yet to be passed, but only for 4 weeks. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/meghan-markle-cold-called-senators-191300365.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall. Maybe she will run for office later; I would vote for her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. May I offer a different perspective? The BRF is strictly forbidden to be political. Sensibilities are very high and they must tread very carefully. Even the Queen has been criticized for taking sides with her COP26 speech. That's one of the reasons Meghan left. Now she is free to be as political as she wishes. The RF are not grudging her this. What they are very uncomfortable about is that when she does politics using her title, she is somehow dragging the RF with her. She is the DoS because she is a member of the BRF. One could easily conclude that a member of the RF is meddling in US politics. The RF cannot give that impression, it is of supreme importance that they are neutral. They have to protect the institution, they yo protect the UK.
      This isn't about poor Meghan, why can't she use her title, that's her name after all, but about how the RF must remain politically neutral.
      I think Meghan is perfectly right to try and influence US politics, she is an US citizen and in fact IMO only citizens of one given country have the legitimacy to try and change things in that country. Anything else is interference. But the Duchess of Sussex is not an US citizen. Meghan Markle is.

      Delete
    2. I think that's a fair comment, H. Except the BRF absolutely get involved in politics, examples being the Queen asking for an exemption for Balmoral (which she personally owns) and Charles' spider memos. I agree with you that they shouldn't, but they do.

      So here's Meghan in the USA, no longer a working royal and a member of the family in name only (by which I mean personally). She uses her title, because that's her married name. If she didn't have a title she'd be Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor. But she does have a title, so that's her name.

      I think the British media will use anything they can to get their readers worked up. Does what she did affect Britain? Not in the slightest. Britain already has paid leave. Is it embarrassing? Some would say it's a basic right to be able to take care of your baby without worry. So I really fail to see what the issue is here. I truly do. The Duchess of Sussex is an American citizen even if some wish she didn't have that title.

      Delete
    3. The DoS was an American citizen when she married Harry, when she received the title, when she traveled in the UK and abroad, and when she moved to the US. She is the DoS and remains a US citizen.

      Delete

Welcome to Mad About Meghan! We do so look forward to reading your thoughts. Constructive, fair debate is always encouraged. Hateful, derogatory terms and insults are not welcome here. This space focuses on Harry and Meghan, not any other member of the Royal family. It's not the place to discuss politics either. Thank you for reading, we look forward to your comments :)