https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/prince-harry-meghan-markle-criticize-metas-decision-end-fact-checking-label-deeply-deceptive

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s Meta Controversy: Free Speech, Misinformation, or Political Overreach?

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have once again found themselves at the center of a heated public debate, this time over their strong condemnation of Meta’s decision to end fact-checking on Facebook and Instagram. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex released a statement through their Archewell Foundation website, calling Meta’s move “deeply deceptive” and a direct threat to public safety and free speech.

The controversy highlights larger global conversations around free speech, misinformation, and the role of social media corporations in shaping public discourse. However, it has also drawn strong backlash from critics—particularly conservative voices—who accuse the couple of hypocrisy, political opportunism, and seeking attention.

This raises an important question: Are Harry and Meghan making a legitimate case for responsible digital policies, or are they overstepping their role and wading into a politically divisive issue?

---

The Sussexes’ Criticism of Meta: Key Points

In their statement, Harry and Meghan criticized Meta’s decision to roll back fact-checking measures, arguing that this change:

1. Directly undermines free speech – They argue that allowing more abuse, misinformation, and hate speech actually silences voices, rather than promoting open dialogue.
2. Prioritizes profit over public safety – The couple suggests that Meta is making these decisions based on financial incentives rather than ethical considerations.
3. Disregards its own commitments to integrity – Meta has long stated that it aims to build human connection and protect communities online, but the Sussexes claim that removing fact-checking contradicts these stated values.
4. Neglects the well-being of marginalized communities – The statement emphasizes that platforms like Facebook and Instagram play a critical role in shaping democracy and online safety, particularly for vulnerable groups.

The Sussexes’ Broader Advocacy on Digital Safety

Since stepping down as senior royals in 2020, Harry and Meghan have actively campaigned for safer online spaces, particularly for children, parents, and marginalized communities.

In 2024, they launched The Parents Network through Archewell, a resource designed to support families impacted by cyberbullying, online abuse, and harmful social media content. The Sussexes have repeatedly called for greater accountability in tech companies, arguing that profit-driven algorithms are fueling mental health crises, radicalization, and social division.

Given their history of advocating for digital responsibility, their criticism of Meta aligns with their broader mission. However, the backlash against them suggests that their involvement in such discussions is still viewed through a political lens, particularly among conservative commentators.

---

The Backlash: Criticism from Conservatives and Social Media Users

While their stance against misinformation might seem uncontroversial, critics have fiercely opposed their comments, arguing that:

1. Harry and Meghan Are Being Hypocritical

• Many critics point out that Meghan recently rejoined Instagram (@meghan) after a five-year hiatus, likely to promote her upcoming Netflix cooking show.
• Critics argue that if she truly opposed Meta’s policies, she wouldn’t be using its platforms for personal and professional gain.
• Some see this as a calculated PR move—criticizing Meta for credibility while still benefiting from its reach.

2. The Couple Is Engaging in Political Activism

• Conservative voices, including Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation, claim that Harry and Meghan are using their royal titles to influence political discourse.
• Gardiner argues that royals are traditionally expected to remain neutral, and their Meta statement is a clear political stance on free speech and censorship.
• The Heritage Foundation has even suggested that this move will further fuel demands for Prince Harry’s U.S. immigration records to be released.

3. Meta’s Decision Actually Supports Free Speech

• Many right-leaning commentators and social media users argue that fact-checking has been weaponized to suppress conservative viewpoints.
• They claim that Meta’s move ensures that diverse opinions—including controversial ones—can be freely expressed.
• Some critics believe that the Sussexes are advocating for more censorship, rather than true free speech, aligning them with progressive political movements that seek to control online narratives.

4. The Sussexes Are Out of Their Depth

• Others argue that neither Harry nor Meghan have any background in tech policy, journalism, or free speech law—making their stance uninformed and lacking credibility.
• They see the couple as wealthy elites who are disconnected from real-world issues, merely capitalizing on trending social justice movements to maintain relevance.
• Some even mock their involvement, claiming they are “desperate to be taken seriously” despite having no real influence over corporate policy.

---

The Larger Debate: Free Speech vs. Misinformation

Beyond Harry and Meghan’s involvement, the backlash to their statement reflects larger divisions over the role of social media in regulating speech.

1. Should social media companies be responsible for fact-checking content?
   • Critics argue that fact-checking can be biased, manipulated, or used to suppress dissenting voices.
   • Supporters believe that allowing unchecked misinformation spreads dangerous falsehoods—on topics ranging from vaccines to elections.
2. Is Meta protecting or harming free speech?
   • Mark Zuckerberg has positioned this policy shift as a move toward greater free expression, emphasizing that fact-checkers have been politically biased.
   • Others worry that removing safeguards will make platforms even more vulnerable to propaganda, hate speech, and disinformation.
3. What role should public figures play in this debate?
   • Some argue that Harry and Meghan, as private citizens, have every right to express their opinions.
   • Others feel that their continued use of royal titles complicates their credibility, making it seem like an official royal stance.

---

Final Thoughts: The Never-Ending Meghan & Harry Debate

Ultimately, this controversy is yet another chapter in the ongoing global obsession with Harry and Meghan.

• If they remain silent, they are called irrelevant.
• If they speak out, they are accused of overstepping and being attention-seekers.
• If they align with progressive causes, they are slammed as hypocrites.
• If they do nothing, they are ridiculed for not using their platform responsibly.

At this point, it is clear that no matter what they do, the media will continue to scrutinize, dissect, and polarize their every move.

However, beyond the royal drama, the debate over free speech, misinformation, and corporate responsibility is one that affects billions of social media users worldwide.

The question remains: Did Harry and Meghan genuinely call out a concerning issue, or are they simply inserting themselves into yet another controversy?

One thing is for sure—this won’t be the last time they make headlines.