3 ms·

I mean, you can skim the emails here [1]. Maybe individual messages are kind of okay, but all together it definitely reads like policing of private speech. The

I mean, you can skim the emails here [1]. Maybe individual messages are kind of okay, but all together it definitely reads like policing of private speech. The inter-agency communications in particular are pretty bad. [1]: https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Joint-Statement-on-Discovery-Disputes-Combined.pdf https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Joint-State...

woodruffw 4y ago
Can you point to the ones you think are particularly bad? I'm looking through the actual emails (starting on page 147), and so far I see: * A public health agency (CDC) receiving media reports ("CrowdTangle content insights") from Facebook. Maybe there's some question about propriety, but that isn't itself evidence of censorship -- the direction there is entirely private-to-public. * Someone at the CDC responding to Facebook, thanking them for sending those media reports (p. 164). * Lots of coordination about who to send the reports to (about 30 pages of just that). * Finally, a lot of not-particularly-objectionable public information about vaccines: that they don't contain microchips, etc. Critically, I can't find any references to the "Great Barrington Declaration" or evidence that the CDC went beyond communicating public health policy to a handful of companies. It's entirely possible that I missed it in this 700 page PDF, so please let me know if you find it.
- junofan 4y ago
  I wasn’t referring to Great Barrington Declaration, so unclear to me why that is critical. For ex: p516 is a request from a redacted sender in which the sender shares an elections-related post and then asks to know how it was handled. The message footer references CISA policy. I think the tone is a little strange and could be reasonably construed as a way to work around the policy of not seeking action laid out in the message footer.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    > I wasn’t referring to Great Barrington Declaration, so unclear to me why that is critical. Because it's the crux of TFA. Without evidence that the Federal Government pressured companies to spike information they considered unfavorable, this is just a big pile of emails between bureaucrats and office workers. The email on p. 516 exemplifies this: someone in USG is asking Meta how they responded to a local government report. They're not asking for any specific action from Meta, and there's no evidence in the replies that Meta's employees construed the request as a demand to do anything.

woodruffw 4y ago

Can you point to the ones you think are particularly bad? I'm looking through the actual emails (starting on page 147), and so far I see: * A public health agency (CDC) receiving media reports ("CrowdTangle content insights") from Facebook. Maybe there's some question about propriety, but that isn't itself evidence of censorship -- the direction there is entirely private-to-public. * Someone at the CDC responding to Facebook, thanking them for sending those media reports (p. 164). * Lots of coordination about who to send the reports to (about 30 pages of just that). * Finally, a lot of not-particularly-objectionable public information about vaccines: that they don't contain microchips, etc. Critically, I can't find any references to the "Great Barrington Declaration" or evidence that the CDC went beyond communicating public health policy to a handful of companies. It's entirely possible that I missed it in this 700 page PDF, so please let me know if you find it.

junofan 4y ago
I wasn’t referring to Great Barrington Declaration, so unclear to me why that is critical. For ex: p516 is a request from a redacted sender in which the sender shares an elections-related post and then asks to know how it was handled. The message footer references CISA policy. I think the tone is a little strange and could be reasonably construed as a way to work around the policy of not seeking action laid out in the message footer.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > I wasn’t referring to Great Barrington Declaration, so unclear to me why that is critical. Because it's the crux of TFA. Without evidence that the Federal Government pressured companies to spike information they considered unfavorable, this is just a big pile of emails between bureaucrats and office workers. The email on p. 516 exemplifies this: someone in USG is asking Meta how they responded to a local government report. They're not asking for any specific action from Meta, and there's no evidence in the replies that Meta's employees construed the request as a demand to do anything.