>attributable to the Disinformation Dozen I appreciate the back and forth, but there's something extremely creepy about the government(s?) branding private cit

>attributable to the Disinformation Dozen I appreciate the back and forth, but there's something extremely creepy about the government(s?) branding private citizens with a nom de guerre as if they're an organization with enemy-of-the-state status. I don't know that I was clear enough when I said I "don't understand social media to be the proximate cause" of vaccine skepticism. I do not think it's 12 people who manage facebook groups with <1M shares (over a 6 week period!) of their anti-vaccine content. Relative to the volume of posts that go out on these platforms, that is a laughably small amount of reach. It's especially small when you compare it to the reach of the people who dole out vaccine guidance and information, who themselves say one thing about its efficacy and then act in a manner contrary to those same pronouncements. These things get noticed (for the record, got both shots as soon as I could but that should not be relevant), and then feed into the anti-vaccine content itself. Or, and perhaps especially, they say things in one time period for political expediency[1] and then act surprised when some people actually followed the advice. [1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/kamala-harris-says-she-wouldnt-trust-a-vaccine-trump-recommended/ar-BB19O9k4 https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/news/kamala-harris-s... ........ This is a very strange situation to me. When someone makes a claim about social media and it's negative effects on society, there's usually a good-sized cohort who jump in to say "prove it" with data. I'm not saying that here, necessarily, and I do hate social media for other reasons - but it is a little odd that we are attempting to attribute the cause of missing vaccination goals to literally 12 people with a facebook account, when there's dozens (no pun intended) of other confounding variables, and then justifying a pretty significant crossing of the Rubicon in allowing a more heavy-handed approach for letting the executive directly engage with these companies on what is and isn't allowed to be said.