All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (2 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I can't stand Alex Berenson, but this is pretty damning of the Biden administration.


Mr. Berenson sued the company for, among other things, removing him in violation of its own stated policies. In settling the lawsuit last month, Twitter acknowledged it erred in banning Mr. Berenson and agreed to restore his account. As part of legal discovery, Twitter was required to produce documents involving him. Now Mr. Berenson is making some public.

On Friday he published conversations from an internal Twitter Slack channel that show White House officials had met with its employees in April 2021 and targeted Mr. Berenson. One employee noted the meeting overall went “pretty good” but “they had one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform.”

“Any high level takeaways from the meeting? Anything we should keep an eye out for?” an employee asked. (Employee names are redacted from the documents).

“Yes, they really wanted to know about Alex Berenson,” said another comment. “[White House Covid adviser] Andy Slavitt suggested they had seen data viz that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public.”

Twitter didn’t ban Mr. Berenson until August, but its employees were clearly under White House pressure to do so. This pressure probably increased over the summer of 2021 as the Delta variant surged and waning vaccine efficacy stymied Mr. Biden’s promise to shut down the virus.

Twitter is a private company. But evidence of a direct connection between White House pressure and Twitter censorship bolsters the argument that social-media platforms can be sued as “state actors” for restricting speech in violation of the First Amendment. Courts have been reluctant, and properly so, to allow such lawsuits to proceed without evidence linking specific demands from government officials to censorship.

"White House officials had met with its employees in April 2021 and targeted Mr. Berenson."

"Yes, they really wanted to know about Alex Berenson,” said another comment. “[White House Covid adviser] Andy Slavitt suggested they had seen data viz that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public."

"Twitter didn’t ban Mr. Berenson until August, but its employees were clearly under White House pressure to do so. This pressure probably increased over the summer of 2021 as the Delta variant surged and waning vaccine efficacy stymied Mr. Biden’s promise to shut down the virus."

So...

1. One official met with Twitter employees in April and said "hey, this guy has a massive reach and is pumping out disinformation that could easily get people killed.

2. Twitter did nothing for 3-4 months.

3. The pressure probably increased, which means the writer of this article has no clue.

Does any of this support the wording "Biden White House wanted to silence vaccine critic Alex Berenson. Met privately with Twitter, pressured company to ban Berenson. Twitter complied, of course."?

 

[SamAndreas]

Yesterday I got the new vaccine shot. It made my arm sore, but no other problems.



About this Alex Berenson guy. I don't care, don't give a hoot, don't give a damn.

Biden's administration, and what they do is alright by me.



MAGA and assorted Anti-VAX can go pound sand.

 

[MT15]

"White House officials had met with its employees in April 2021 and targeted Mr. Berenson."

"Yes, they really wanted to know about Alex Berenson,” said another comment. “[White House Covid adviser] Andy Slavitt suggested they had seen data viz that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public."

"Twitter didn’t ban Mr. Berenson until August, but its employees were clearly under White House pressure to do so. This pressure probably increased over the summer of 2021 as the Delta variant surged and waning vaccine efficacy stymied Mr. Biden’s promise to shut down the virus."

So...

1. One official met with Twitter employees in April and said "hey, this guy has a massive reach and is pumping out disinformation that could easily get people killed.

2. Twitter did nothing for 3-4 months.

3. The pressure probably increased, which means the writer of this article has no clue.

Does any of this support the wording "Biden White House wanted to silence vaccine critic Alex Berenson. Met privately with Twitter, pressured company to ban Berenson. Twitter complied, of course."?

Those are some pretty good context clues that the author is just speculating. He is posting an OPINION piece as proof? LOL. That opinion piece also states some pretty shaky views as if they are facts.

Corporations settle lawsuits all the time. The fact that someone who was associated with the WH vaccine effort pointed out a huge source of dangerous disinformation to Twitter and then Twitter did nothing for months isn’t the scandal it’s being made out to be. Another LOL.

What a stupid take.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Those are some pretty good context clues that the author is just speculating. He is posting an OPINION piece as proof? LOL. That opinion piece also states some pretty shaky views as if they are facts.

Corporations settle lawsuits all the time. The fact that someone who was associated with the WH vaccine effort pointed out a huge source of dangerous disinformation to Twitter and then Twitter did nothing for months isn’t the scandal it’s being made out to be. Another LOL.

What a stupid take.

In addition, I did a little checking on my own and the lawsuit against Twitter was settled in his favor not because of anything or anyone related to the White House, but because a high-ranking Twitter executive personally told him what he was posting wasn't enough to get him in trouble with the platform.

 

[SaintForLife]

"White House officials had met with its employees in April 2021 and targeted Mr. Berenson."

"Yes, they really wanted to know about Alex Berenson,” said another comment. “[White House Covid adviser] Andy Slavitt suggested they had seen data viz that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public."

"Twitter didn’t ban Mr. Berenson until August, but its employees were clearly under White House pressure to do so. This pressure probably increased over the summer of 2021 as the Delta variant surged and waning vaccine efficacy stymied Mr. Biden’s promise to shut down the virus."

So...

1. One official met with Twitter employees in April and said "hey, this guy has a massive reach and is pumping out disinformation that could easily get people killed.

2. Twitter did nothing for 3-4 months.

3. The pressure probably increased, which means the writer of this article has no clue.

Does any of this support the wording "Biden White House wanted to silence vaccine critic Alex Berenson. Met privately with Twitter, pressured company to ban Berenson. Twitter complied, of course."?

Of course you left out the best part:

On Friday he published conversations from an internal Twitter Slack channel that show White House officials had met with its employees in April 2021 and targeted Mr. Berenson. One employee noted the meeting overall went “pretty good” but “they had one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform.”

“Any high level takeaways from the meeting? Anything we should keep an eye out for?” an employee asked. (Employee names are redacted from the documents).

“Yes, they really wanted to know about Alex Berenson,” said another comment. “[White House Covid adviser] Andy Slavitt suggested they had seen data viz that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public.”


Why was the Biden White House meeting with Facebook employees and discussing who should be censored on their platform. That sure sounds like authoritarianism.

There's more:

Biden officials pressured Facebook, Twitter to censor 'misinformation': state AGs

President Biden's administration allegedly coordinated with social media giants to suppress posts about COVID-19 that they deemed misinformation.

www.foxbusiness.com

One email from a Facebook official to Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said, "I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward."

A week later, the Facebook official told the Department of Health and Human Services about how many posts and profiles had been deleted

"[W]e removed 17 additional Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts tied to the disinfo dozen (so a total of 39 Profiles, Pages, Groups and IG accounts deleted thus far, resulting in every member of the disinfo dozen having had at least one such entity removed)," the Facebook official wrote, according to the emails released by Schmitt and Landry.

 

[SaintForLife]

Those are some pretty good context clues that the author is just speculating. He is posting an OPINION piece as proof? LOL. That opinion piece also states some pretty shaky views as if they are facts.

Corporations settle lawsuits all the time. The fact that someone who was associated with the WH vaccine effort pointed out a huge source of dangerous disinformation to Twitter and then Twitter did nothing for months isn’t the scandal it’s being made out to be. Another LOL.

What a stupid take.

It's not about the lawsuit. It's the information that he made public about the Biden Administration pressuring social media platforms to remove "disinformation." For as much as you go on and on about authoritarianism in the Republican Party, you sounded more like Bidens press secretary with your reply. Are you in support of censorship from the government?

 

[SystemShock]

It's not about the lawsuit. It's the information that he made public about the Biden Administration pressuring social media platforms to remove "disinformation." For as much as you go on and on about authoritarianism in the Republican Party, you sounded more like Bidens press secretary with your reply. Are you in support of censorship from the government?

Why did you write disinformation in quotes?

 

[el caliente]

It's not about the lawsuit. It's the information that he made public about the Biden Administration pressuring social media platforms to remove "disinformation." For as much as you go on and on about authoritarianism in the Republican Party, you sounded more like Bidens press secretary with your reply. Are you in support of censorship from the government?

Yes.

 

[MT15]

Yes.

So now you think you can answer for me? That’s really shirtty of you.

 

[el caliente]

So now you think you can answer for me? That’s really shirtty of you.

So you don’t.

 

[MT15]

It's not about the lawsuit. It's the information that he made public about the Biden Administration pressuring social media platforms to remove "disinformation." For as much as you go on and on about authoritarianism in the Republican Party, you sounded more like Bidens press secretary with your reply. Are you in support of censorship from the government?

So, according to what you are saying - there was “one question” from Dr. Slavitt during the whole meeting about a person who was spreading deadly disinformation about a pandemic. And Twitter did nothing about that person for at least 4 months after that meeting.

But we are supposed to believe this is proof that there was pressure from the US government to censor this person? And they decided to use Dr. Slavitt to do it? Lol.

Even you have to admit this is very thin evidence of censorship. This leaves aside the question: Is being kicked off of Twitter really censorship? It’s not the only way to get points across, it’s not even the largest social platform.

If the government really wanted to censor him, wouldn’t they have had him prevented from distributing his lies on all social media? After all, if they can control Twitter, (clue: they can’t and don’t) then why stop there?

This is far less like censorship and far more like an earnest physician worrying about people actually dying during a pandemic due to disinformation.

 

[MT15]

So you don’t.

Why do you think you know me well enough to answer for me?

 

[el caliente]

Why do you think you know me well enough to answer for me?

My pardon. In reviewing you posting history you have never said that you are for censorship. You have never outright called for censorship, you have rather said that you would prefer making information harder to come by (by switching out algorithms).

My pardon. You don’t believe in censorship.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Of course you left out the best part:

On Friday he published conversations from an internal Twitter Slack channel that show White House officials had met with its employees in April 2021 and targeted Mr. Berenson. One employee noted the meeting overall went “pretty good” but “they had one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform.”

“Any high level takeaways from the meeting? Anything we should keep an eye out for?” an employee asked. (Employee names are redacted from the documents).

“Yes, they really wanted to know about Alex Berenson,” said another comment. “[White House Covid adviser] Andy Slavitt suggested they had seen data viz that had showed he was the epicenter of disinfo that radiated outwards to the persuadable public.”


Why was the Biden White House meeting with Facebook employees and discussing who should be censored on their platform. That sure sounds like authoritarianism.

There's more:

Biden officials pressured Facebook, Twitter to censor 'misinformation': state AGs

President Biden's administration allegedly coordinated with social media giants to suppress posts about COVID-19 that they deemed misinformation.

www.foxbusiness.com

One email from a Facebook official to Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said, "I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward."

A week later, the Facebook official told the Department of Health and Human Services about how many posts and profiles had been deleted

"[W]e removed 17 additional Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts tied to the disinfo dozen (so a total of 39 Profiles, Pages, Groups and IG accounts deleted thus far, resulting in every member of the disinfo dozen having had at least one such entity removed)," the Facebook official wrote, according to the emails released by Schmitt and Landry.

Are you forking serious? I quoted and addressed that very thing. If you aren't even going to read the posts you respond to, why are you even here?

 

[SaintForLife]

Are you forking serious? I quoted and addressed that very thing. If you aren't even going to read the posts you respond to, why are you even here?

You left this part out:

One employee noted the meeting overall went “pretty good” but “they had one really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform.”

“Any high level takeaways from the meeting? Anything we should keep an eye out for?” an employee asked. (Employee names are redacted from the documents).

Why did you cut that part out? I'm guessing because it sounded bad. Are you comfortable with the Biden White House meeting weekly with Facebook to tell them what they wanted censored?

 

[SaintForLife]

Why did you write disinformation in quotes?

Because there have been multiple instances of what Democrats and the media claimed were misinformation ended up later being shown to be true.

 

[SaintForLife]

So, according to what you are saying - there was “one question” from Dr. Slavitt during the whole meeting about a person who was spreading deadly disinformation about a pandemic. And Twitter did nothing about that person for at least 4 months after that meeting.

But we are supposed to believe this is proof that there was pressure from the US government to censor this person? And they decided to use Dr. Slavitt to do it? Lol.

Even you have to admit this is very thin evidence of censorship. This leaves aside the question: Is being kicked off of Twitter really censorship? It’s not the only way to get points across, it’s not even the largest social platform.

If the government really wanted to censor him, wouldn’t they have had him prevented from distributing his lies on all social media? After all, if they can control Twitter, (clue: they can’t and don’t) then why stop there?

This is far less like censorship and far more like an earnest physician worrying about people actually dying during a pandemic due to disinformation.

That's a lot of word salad to act as if the Biden White House wasn't involved in telling Facebook/Twitter what they wanted censored. That's not the only instance and I'm sure you saw what I posted above:

Biden officials pressured Facebook, Twitter to censor 'misinformation': state AGs

President Biden's administration allegedly coordinated with social media giants to suppress posts about COVID-19 that they deemed misinformation.

www.foxbusiness.com

The narrative so far has been that Twitter and Facebook are private companies so they can choose what they want on their platforms and it's not a free speech issue. I would say it is a free speech issue when the federal government is involved with what they want censored from Twitter and Facebook.

Do you think the government should have a role in censoring or removing a US citizen's social media posts?

 

[SaintForLife]

I’ll wait to see what the pressure is. If this guy was essentially indirectly causing deaths, then I think the government is responsible for trying to at least dissuade his speech. It’s similar to dissuading people from indirectly killing people by yelling fire in a theater. That’s actually illegal, but putting out vaccine disinformation indirectly kills even more. I don’t support government censorship, but urging responsibility is fine. Let’s see if the pressure included veiled threats. If so, then I’ll expect accountability.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are okay with the federal government being involved with censoring or removing US citizens social media post. I think your reasoning is a specious and a huge reach, but it's good to know where you stand.