Text I deleted regarding the incentive companies have to support the government (censorship narrative) …
In our increasingly fascist world, the government also has strong “partners” and sycophant allies in the corporate community. These companies also buy advertising on these social media platforms and could be expected to withdraw this advertising support if the companies were labeled as promoting dangerous misinformation.
(In his recent on-line visit with presidential candidate RFK, Jr., Elon Musk of Twitter pointed out that “half” of the advertisers to Twitter are now boycotting this social media company because it is now allowing freer speech.)
In other words, “club members” clearly support the Government Narrative and can be expected to do their part to punish those who do not.
We can see one example of this dynamic in the recent decision of Fox News to fire Tucker Carlson, a TV commentator who was nightly challenging the Censorship Narrative.
On the “con” side of the business ledger, Fox News lost 62 percent of its primetime audience and no telling how many cable and satellite customers have “cut the chord” thus depriving Fox of revenue from these previous TV subscribers.
However, the advertising boycott of Fox News in the prime 8 to 9 EST time slot has now ended. In America in 2023, companies - just like mainstream journalists - act in packs. They always support the authorized narrative put forth by government (or whoever is making the real decisions behind the curtain).
More "bonus" text that ended up on the cutting room floor ...
A “conspiracy” is simply two or more people working together to achieve some result. In this example, the intended result was to get 90 percent of the world to believe the pronouncements of our officials and experts were actually true (instead of the most massive and egregious case of disinformation in world history).
More on “transparency” …..
Absent a lawsuit from the State of Missouri, it would take months or years (and large sums of money) for a private citizen to file a “Freedom of Information Request” and get a few nuggets of information that weren’t heavily redacted.
Even when contrarian members of Congress (like Sen. Johnson) demand documents, the agencies typically ignore these requests. Needless to say, the New York Times doesn’t request any of this vital, off-limits information.
I’d also note that while the alternative press IS covering Missouri v. Biden, the mainstream press considers the lawsuit a nothing burger.
There's no doubt that government has declared war on the American people, and somehow the people who just spent 4 years as #THERESISTANCE can't fathom being on the wrong side of government censorship..........EVEN THOUGH THEY ALREADY ARE. (Government spied on and censored BLM/Breonna Taylor protestors right along with 1/6 defendants and covid narrative doubters.)
CBDC's are key for if passed they will grant the government more power & control over people than anything before. The UK Exchequer openly bragged about how CBDC's can be used to control peoples spending under the guise of combating climate change going so far as to brag about how even teh employer could place certain restrictions on their employees purchases via control over the CBDC the employer pays the employee with. They are this confident in achieving this that they no longer fear openly bragging about it.
The First Amendment also protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
In this document (I need to find it), there is evidence of WH Censorship Bullies threatening Facebook because they didn't ban users who were using their posts to help organize protests or to publicize some gathering they wanted to have with people who thought like them. In my opinion, this is the government infringing on the right of people to peaceably assemble. In the future, if you are trying to use your Facebook or Twitter Account to promote a meeting to fight The Green New Deal, this could be banned speech and you (or the social media companies that allow such speech) could be punished.
So the First Amendment deals with more than just "speech." Also, of course, the freedom to practice one's religion was definitely suspended for more than a year.
Continuing with excerpts from the legal document ....
II. The White House’s Public and Private Pressure Campaign on Platforms.
31. Many White House officials are involved in communicating with social-media platforms about misinformation, disinformation, and censorship. In response to a third-party subpoena, Facebook/Meta identified at least the following White House officials as engaged in such communications: Special Assistant to the President Laura Rosenberger, White House Partnerships Manager Aisha Shah, White House Counsel Dana Remus, and White House officials Andy Slavitt, Rob Flaherty, and Clarke Humphrey.Defendants’ discovery reveals many others.
32. In response to a third-party subpoena, YouTube identified White House officials Benjamin Wakana and Rob Flaherty as engaged in such communications, and Defendants’ discovery reveals others.
33. In response to a third-party subpoena, Twitter has disclosed the following White House officials as engaged in such communications: Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, White House Senior Advisor Andrew Slavitt, NSC staffer Katy E. Colas, Deputy Assistant to the President Joshua Geltzer, White House Digital Director Clarke Humphrey, Deputy Director of the Office of Digital Strategy Tericka Lambert, Press Secretary for the First Lady Michael LaRosa, NSC Director of Counterterrorism John Picarelli, Chief of Staff for the Office of Digital Strategy Hoor Qureshi, Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement Courtney Rowe, White House Associate Counsel Michael Posada, Associate Director for Communications Marissa Sanchez-Velasco, Deputy Director of Digital Strategy Christian Tom, and Strategic Director of Digital Communications Benjamin Wakana. Jones Decl., Ex. F, at 1. Defendants’ discovery has revealed others. See infra.
A. Pressure in Private from Rob Flaherty, Andy Slavitt, and White House Officials.
34. The Biden White House’s demands for censorship began almost immediately upon taking office. On January 23, 2021, three days after Inauguration Day, at 1:04 a.m., Clarke Humphrey of the White House emailed Twitter, copying Rob Flaherty, with the subject line: “Flagging Hank Aaron misinfo.” The email stated: “Hey folks – Wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process for having it removed ASAP.” Id. Humphrey then linked to a Tweet by anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who
is also a principal target of the Virality Project and a member of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen.” Id. Humphrey added: “And then if we can keep an eye out for tweets that fall in this same ~genre that would be great.”
37. The White House’s demands for censorship continued relentlessly, and their tone was arrogant, demanding, and peremptory. On Saturday night, February 6, 2021, at 9:45 p.m., Rob Flaherty emailed Twitter to demand the immediate removal of a parody or impostor account linked to Finnegan Biden, Hunter Biden’s adult daughter. Doc. 174-1, at 4. He stated: “Please remove this account immediately.” Id. He also stated: “I have tried using your form three times and it won’t work—it is also ridiculous that I need to upload my id to a form [to] prove that I am an authorized representative of Finnegan Biden.”
38. Two minutes later, at 9:47 p.m., Twitter responded, “Thanks for sending this over. We’ll escalate for further review from here.” Id. Flaherty shot back, the same minute, “Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately.” Id. Forty-five minutes later, at 10:32 p.m., Twitter responded, “Update for you – account is now suspended.” Id. at 3-4.
Thank you for this excellent piece on Missouri vs Biden.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial team has been willing to run editorials that disagree with government positions on topics like severity of Covid, lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. Their editorials have been more willing to question government policy than their news reporters.
I don't know if they have run any stories in Missouri vs Biden, but if not, pethaps they would be willing to do so.
Thanks, Matthew. Yes, there's a night-and-day difference between the WSJ's editorial/opinion side and their "straight news" side. I like the op-ed folks much better.
Since Facebook isn't working for you, I thought I'd try my hand at helping it work for you. My main post: "Please subscribe to my friend's stack, link below. Oh, you'll love the article." And in the comment, the link (I get away with putting a lot of such links in the main post now, but won't chance it here) with: "Tell Bill I sent you. We want to see how many subscribers--free or not, you need not pay--we can get him via a simple post like this."
As an INTJ I enjoy doing what I can for a likely fellow INTJ. Maybe nothing will happen. But why not try. May I encourage others to do the same?
Thanks, Doug! I really appreciate the thoughts and the interest in helping a fellow similar thinker. I don't think it can hurt. As I've written, I have more than 1,500 Facebook followers. I would estimate that 90 percent of these followers don't even know I write a Substack newsletter that is read in all 50 states and 90 countries. And I DO share some of my Substack articles on Facebook. I bet of my 3,850 subscribers, maybe 10 are from Facebook. These are the people who know me and I think like me. Weird. Maddening really.
('Course I'm referring to the pen which, when unsheathed from its holster is mightier than Kevin Bacon in Animal House: "Thank you, sir! May I have another!")
My blind brother dislikes memes, although I collect them from CFP open thread commenters like seashells on the lowtide beach.
I'd be sharing them as a substack reply if my tech skills and the alphabet agencies allowed. You're right! You're right! Conspiracy!
I'm all in on defending everyone the right to be heard, as well as the right to be ignored. Forcing people to listen, id est, required reading, is promoting a credentialed class of subject matter experts who set the agenda, promote the narrative and censor the dissent.
Thank you for digging!
The lack of intellectual curiosity of the masses is depressing, as are the bread & circuses. Edumacation is killing us.
They could. My worry is that everyone is against child porn and pedophilia (or almost everyone). If they used these "tools" for these good reasons, they'd just come back and say that they are using the same "safety" tools to block "dangerous" speech on vaccines or Global Warming skeptics, etc.
Alex Berenson has a piece on this at his site right now.
Thanks for the link. Quite agree this case is most important. I do see that Jordan is going after the Stanford Truth Group, finally a benefit to the swing in the house. Sadly the average citizen will hear little about what has been done and the harm that may have been caused. An informed electorate is not on our government's agenda.
That is good to see and it did help when the Republicans got control of the House. "An informed electorate" is actually what they want to prevent and make impossible. As I write, it's one of the keys to their operations (one of their most-important "chess moves.").
"In a democracy, free speech is vitally important as it makes dissent from prevailing narratives possible and thus protects the “natural rights” of citizens who may hold minority views."
Bill - this may seem pedantic but I think it's important to bear in mind that the 1st Amendment protects everyone's right to HEAR dissenting views as well as the right to express them.
When you read these bullying diatribes from the White House's Mr. Flaherty, remember that all of that "sensational" content he wanted banned ... was actually TRUE and accurate information. In fact, it was information that could have SAVED lives ... if only more people saw it and thought about it. It was the government's "disinformation" that ended up killing and harming tens of millions of Americans.
66. On March 22, 2021, Flaherty responded to Facebook, demanding much more detailed information and action about “sensationalized” content on its platforms. Flaherty noted that White House officials were demanding a plan from Facebook to censor non- violative content, i.e., “looking out for your game plan on tackling vaccine hesitancy spread on your platform.” Id.
67. In this email, Flaherty badgered Facebook with a series of detailed requests for information about this issue of censoring vaccine-skeptical content that does not violate Facebook’s content-moderation policies, such as truthful but “sensational” content: “Again, as I've said, what we are looking for is the universe and scale of the problem. You noted that there is a level below sensational stories that get down-ranked, which took the form of general skepticism.
... [T]he problem does not sit in ‘microchips’-land, and ... it seems plausible that the things that drive the most actual hesitancy sit in ‘sensational’ and ‘skeptical.’” Id.. Flaherty demanded more information and greater censorship of such non-violative “sensational” and “skeptical” content: “If you're down ranking sensational stuff—great—but I want to know how effective you've seen that be from a market research perspective. And then, what interventions are being taken on ‘skepticism?’ ... [W]hat are you trying here, and again, how effective have you seen it be. And critically, what amount of content is falling into all of these buckets? Is there wider scale of skepticism than sensationalism? I assume given the Carnegie data and the studies I've seen in the press that you have this. ... As I've said: this is not to play gotcha. It is to get a sense of what you are doing to manage this.”
If I was going to identify "Big Brother's" top enforcer, it would be Rob Flaherty, a key WH aide who seemingly worked 24-7/365 days a year to pressure social media companies to impose far greater censorship. If he was a female, I would call this guy a "wicked witch."
57. Flaherty responded in accusatory fashion, referring to a series of at least three previous oral conversations in which the White House had demanded more information from Facebook about its censorship policies. Id. at 11. Flaherty made clear that the White House was seeking more aggressive action on “borderline” content—i.e., content that does not clearly violate Facebook’s own censorship policies but the White House demands action against anyway. Flaherty wrote: “I don't think this is a misunderstanding ... I've been asking you guys pretty directly, over a series of conversations, for a clear accounting of the biggest issues you are seeing on your platform when it comes to vaccine hesitancy, and the degree to which borderline content- -as you define it-- is playing a role …”
A Mr. Slavitt is another Engerizer Bunny (Gestapo enforcer?) when it comes to more and more censorship ... For example (and there are many such examples in this document) ...
61. Slavitt then made an ominous statement threatening unspecified Executive action against Facebook in retaliation for Facebook’s perceived lack of cooperation with the White House’s demands on censorship of “borderline” (non-violative) content: “Internally we have been considering our options on what to do about it.” Id. at 10 (emphasis added).
As noted in my article, evidence showing White House demands for more censorship are seemingly never-ending. Here's some more examples ....
37. The White House’s demands for censorship continued relentlessly, and their tone was arrogant, demanding, and peremptory. On Saturday night, February 6, 2021, at 9:45 p.m., Rob Flaherty emailed Twitter to demand the immediate removal of a parody or impostor account linked to Finnegan Biden, Hunter Biden’s adult daughter. Doc. 174-1, at 4. He stated: “Please remove this account immediately.” Id. He also stated: “I have tried using your form three times and it won’t work—it is also ridiculous that I need to upload my id to a form [to] prove that I am an authorized representative of Finnegan Biden.”
38. Two minutes later, at 9:47 p.m., Twitter responded, “Thanks for sending this over. We’ll escalate for further review from here.” Id. Flaherty shot back, the same minute, “Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately.” Id. Forty-five minutes later, at 10:32 p.m., Twitter responded, “Update for you – account is now suspended.” Id. at 3-4.
40. Twitter noted that it had been recently bombarded with such requests for censorship from the White House: “we would prefer to have a streamlined process strictly with your team as the internal liaison. That is the most efficient and effective way to ensure we are prioritizing requests. In a given day last week for example, we had more than four different people within the White House reaching out for issues.” Id. at 3.
41. The next day, Monday, February 8, 2021, Facebook emailed Rob Flaherty, Courtney Rowe, and Clarke Humphrey of the White House to explain how it had recently expanded its COVID-19 censorship policies. Doc. 174-1, at 7-8. Facebook stated: “We wanted to make sure you saw our announcements today about running the largest worldwide campaign to promote authoritative COVID-19 vaccine information and expanding our efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general during the pandemic.” Id.
42. Under the heading “Combating Vaccine Misinformation,” Facebook provided a detailed list of expanded censorship policies: “We are expanding our efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general during the pandemic. Since December [i.e. during the Biden transition], we've removed false claims about COVID-19 vaccines that have been debunked by public health experts. ... [W]e are expanding the list of false claims we will remove to include additional debunked claims about the coronavirus and vaccines. ... Groups, Pages and accounts on Facebook and Instagram that repeatedly share these debunked claims may be removed altogether. We are also requiring some admins for groups with admins or members who have violated our COVID-19 policies to temporarily approve all posts within their group. .... On Instagram, in addition to surfacing authoritative results in Search, in the coming weeks we're making it harder to find accounts in search that discourage people from getting vaccinated....”
43. This was not nearly enough for the White House. Within 19 minutes of receiving this email, Flaherty responded, pressing Facebook for more information about how strict the new policies are. Id. at 7. Quoting Facebook’s email in italics, he wrote: “This line, of course, stands out: that repeatedly share these debunked claims may be removed altogether. Can you share more about your framework here? May, of course, is very different than ‘will.’ Is there a strike policy, ala Youtube? Does the severity of the claims matter?” Id. at 7. He also asked for specific data on the application of the censorship policies: “And as far as your removal of claims, do you have data on the actual number of claims - related posts you've removed? Do you have a sense of how many are being flagged versus how many are being removed? Are there actions (downranking, etc) that sit before removal?
How are you handling things that are dubious, but not provably false?” Id.
I wonder What my readers (or American citizens) think of tactics or meetings like these ...
44. The next day, February 9, 2021, Flaherty followed up with Facebook with a demand for more information and an accusation (to be repeated) that Facebook’s failure to censor speech on its platforms causes “political violence”: “All, especially given the Journal’s reporting on your internal work on political violence spurred by Facebook groups, I am also curious about the new rules as part of the ‘overhaul.’ I am seeing that you will no longer promote civic and health related groups, but I am wondering if the reforms here extend further? Are there other growth vectors you are controlling for?” Flaherty suggested an oral meeting to discuss: “Happy to put time on the calendar to discuss further.” Id.
45. Facebook responded on February 9, 2021, with a detailed answer to each of Flaherty’s questions about the enforcement of its new policies. Facebook also noted that “We are happy to discuss these and additional questions as per your recent note.” Among other things, Facebook reported that it would “suspend the entire Page, Group, or account” in case of repeat violations; that it “will begin enforcing this policy immediately,” that for vaccine-skeptical content that does not violate Facebook’s policies, Facebook will “reduce its distribution and add strong warning labels with more context, so fewer people see the post,” and that Facebook was working to censor content that does not violate its policies in other ways by “prevent[ing] posts discouraging vaccines from going viral on our platforms; address[ing] content that experts believe dissuades people from getting the vaccine, but does not violate our misinformation policies, through the use of information labels; and prevent[ing] recommendations for Groups, Pages, and Instagram accounts that repeatedly push content discouraging vaccines,” id. at 6.
46. Facebook advised Flaherty that it was relying on advice of “public health authorities” to determine its censorship policies: “In consultation with leading health
organizations, we continuously expand the list of false claims that we remove about COVID-19 and vaccines during the pandemic. We remove claims public health authorities tell us have been debunked or are unsupported by evidence.” Id. at 6 (emphasis added).
47. Facebook also promised Flaherty that it would aggressively enforce the new censorship policies: “We will begin enforcing this policy immediately, with a particular focus on Pages, Groups and accounts that violate these rules, and we'll continue to expand our enforcement over the coming weeks.” Id. at 5.
48. Facebook then followed up to “see when you would like to have a meeting arranged to speak to our misinformation team reps about the latest updates. They also have a more detailed misinformation analysis prepared based on the discussions/questions from the previous meetings during the transition time period.” Id. at 5.
49. This email makes clear that Flaherty, as part of the Biden transition team, had already engaged in “previous meetings” and “discussions/questions” with Facebook about censorship of COVID-19 misinformation on its platforms during the Presidential transition period from November 2020 to January 2021. Id.
As I point out in my article, it's more than "Covid misinformation." Election misinformation is another big censorship topic. That is, if you think some election was stolen or fraudulent, you can't say that on social media. Here's some statements made by Biden and his vice president.
19. Then-candidate and now-President Biden has led this charge. He has tripled down on these threats of adverse official action from his colleagues and allies in senior federal-government positions. His threats of adverse government action have been among the most vociferous, and among the most clearly linked to calls for more aggressive censorship of disfavored speakers and speech by social-media companies.
20. For example, on January 17, 2020, then-candidate Biden stated, in an interview with the New York Times editorial board, that Section 230 of the CDA should be “revoked” because social- media companies like Facebook did not do enough to censor supposedly false information in the form of political ads criticizing him—i.e., core political speech. He stated: “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.” He also stated, “And it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.... There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally irresponsible.” Glenn Decl. Ex. 19, at 27; Doc. 10-1, at 275.
21. Candidate Biden also threatened that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg should be subject to civil liability and even criminal prosecution for not censoring such core political speech: “He should be submitted to civil liability and his company to civil liability.... Whether he engaged in something and amounted to collusion that in fact caused harm that would in fact be equal to a criminal offense, that’s a different issue. That’s possible. That’s possible it could happen.” Id. In other words, Biden’s message—not long before he became President of the United States—was that if Facebook did not censor political ads against him, Zuckerberg should go to prison. These two threats echoed the same threats made by numerous political allies of the President since 2019, cited above.
22. During the presidential campaign, now-Vice President Harris made similar threats against social-media firms to pressure them to engage in more aggressive censorship of speakers, content, and viewpoints she disfavors. For example, in addition to the statements cited above, she stated in 2019: “We will hold social media platforms responsible for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. And if you profit off of hate—if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyberwarfare, if you don’t police your platforms—we are going to hold you accountable as a community.”
23. In or around June 2020, the Biden campaign published an open letter and online petition (ironically, on Facebook) calling for Facebook to engage in more aggressive censorship of core political speech and viewpoints that then-Candidate Biden disfavored. The open letter complained that Facebook “continues to allow Donald Trump to say anything — and to pay to ensure that his wild claims reach millions of voters. Super PACs and other dark money groups are following his example. Trump and his allies have used Facebook to spread fear and misleading information about voting.... We call for Facebook to proactively stem the tide of false information by no longer amplifying untrustworthy content and promptly fact-checking election-related material that goes viral. We call for Facebook to stop allowing politicians to hide behind paid misinformation in the hope that the truth will catch up only after Election Day. There should be a two-week pre- election period during which all political advertisements must be fact-checked before they are permitted to run on Facebook. ... Anything less will render Facebook a tool of misinformation that corrodes our democracy.”
24. The online petition demanded that Facebook “[p]romote real news, not fake news,” “[q]uickly remove viral misinformation,” and “[e]nforce voter suppression rules against
everyone—even the President [Trump].” Glenn Decl. Ex. 24, at 2; Doc. 10-1, at 304. The petition complained that Facebook “continues to amplify misinformation and lets candidates pay to target and confuse voters with lies.” It demanded that Facebook “promote authoritative and trustworthy sources of election information, rather than rants of bad actors and conspiracy theorists,” “promptly remove false, viral information,” and “prevent political candidates and PACs from using paid advertising to spread lies and misinformation – especially within two weeks of election day.” Id. at 305.
Text I deleted regarding the incentive companies have to support the government (censorship narrative) …
In our increasingly fascist world, the government also has strong “partners” and sycophant allies in the corporate community. These companies also buy advertising on these social media platforms and could be expected to withdraw this advertising support if the companies were labeled as promoting dangerous misinformation.
(In his recent on-line visit with presidential candidate RFK, Jr., Elon Musk of Twitter pointed out that “half” of the advertisers to Twitter are now boycotting this social media company because it is now allowing freer speech.)
In other words, “club members” clearly support the Government Narrative and can be expected to do their part to punish those who do not.
We can see one example of this dynamic in the recent decision of Fox News to fire Tucker Carlson, a TV commentator who was nightly challenging the Censorship Narrative.
On the “con” side of the business ledger, Fox News lost 62 percent of its primetime audience and no telling how many cable and satellite customers have “cut the chord” thus depriving Fox of revenue from these previous TV subscribers.
However, the advertising boycott of Fox News in the prime 8 to 9 EST time slot has now ended. In America in 2023, companies - just like mainstream journalists - act in packs. They always support the authorized narrative put forth by government (or whoever is making the real decisions behind the curtain).
More "bonus" text that ended up on the cutting room floor ...
A “conspiracy” is simply two or more people working together to achieve some result. In this example, the intended result was to get 90 percent of the world to believe the pronouncements of our officials and experts were actually true (instead of the most massive and egregious case of disinformation in world history).
More on “transparency” …..
Absent a lawsuit from the State of Missouri, it would take months or years (and large sums of money) for a private citizen to file a “Freedom of Information Request” and get a few nuggets of information that weren’t heavily redacted.
Even when contrarian members of Congress (like Sen. Johnson) demand documents, the agencies typically ignore these requests. Needless to say, the New York Times doesn’t request any of this vital, off-limits information.
I’d also note that while the alternative press IS covering Missouri v. Biden, the mainstream press considers the lawsuit a nothing burger.
There's no doubt that government has declared war on the American people, and somehow the people who just spent 4 years as #THERESISTANCE can't fathom being on the wrong side of government censorship..........EVEN THOUGH THEY ALREADY ARE. (Government spied on and censored BLM/Breonna Taylor protestors right along with 1/6 defendants and covid narrative doubters.)
Yep. Thank you for all you are doing to fight this New Normal madness.
It takes a lot of screaming, but we're making inroads.
We haven't given up. Central Bank digital currencies and a victory for "Biden" in this case might be "check mate" though.
CBDC's are key for if passed they will grant the government more power & control over people than anything before. The UK Exchequer openly bragged about how CBDC's can be used to control peoples spending under the guise of combating climate change going so far as to brag about how even teh employer could place certain restrictions on their employees purchases via control over the CBDC the employer pays the employee with. They are this confident in achieving this that they no longer fear openly bragging about it.
The First Amendment also protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
In this document (I need to find it), there is evidence of WH Censorship Bullies threatening Facebook because they didn't ban users who were using their posts to help organize protests or to publicize some gathering they wanted to have with people who thought like them. In my opinion, this is the government infringing on the right of people to peaceably assemble. In the future, if you are trying to use your Facebook or Twitter Account to promote a meeting to fight The Green New Deal, this could be banned speech and you (or the social media companies that allow such speech) could be punished.
So the First Amendment deals with more than just "speech." Also, of course, the freedom to practice one's religion was definitely suspended for more than a year.
Why did Apple fight the government so much over un locking of thier phones?
Because Apple feared their customers.
Nothing gets done without some sort of forcing action.
The customers can applie more force than the government.
Bud Light
Continuing with excerpts from the legal document ....
II. The White House’s Public and Private Pressure Campaign on Platforms.
31. Many White House officials are involved in communicating with social-media platforms about misinformation, disinformation, and censorship. In response to a third-party subpoena, Facebook/Meta identified at least the following White House officials as engaged in such communications: Special Assistant to the President Laura Rosenberger, White House Partnerships Manager Aisha Shah, White House Counsel Dana Remus, and White House officials Andy Slavitt, Rob Flaherty, and Clarke Humphrey.Defendants’ discovery reveals many others.
32. In response to a third-party subpoena, YouTube identified White House officials Benjamin Wakana and Rob Flaherty as engaged in such communications, and Defendants’ discovery reveals others.
33. In response to a third-party subpoena, Twitter has disclosed the following White House officials as engaged in such communications: Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty, White House Senior Advisor Andrew Slavitt, NSC staffer Katy E. Colas, Deputy Assistant to the President Joshua Geltzer, White House Digital Director Clarke Humphrey, Deputy Director of the Office of Digital Strategy Tericka Lambert, Press Secretary for the First Lady Michael LaRosa, NSC Director of Counterterrorism John Picarelli, Chief of Staff for the Office of Digital Strategy Hoor Qureshi, Director of Strategic Communications and Engagement Courtney Rowe, White House Associate Counsel Michael Posada, Associate Director for Communications Marissa Sanchez-Velasco, Deputy Director of Digital Strategy Christian Tom, and Strategic Director of Digital Communications Benjamin Wakana. Jones Decl., Ex. F, at 1. Defendants’ discovery has revealed others. See infra.
A. Pressure in Private from Rob Flaherty, Andy Slavitt, and White House Officials.
34. The Biden White House’s demands for censorship began almost immediately upon taking office. On January 23, 2021, three days after Inauguration Day, at 1:04 a.m., Clarke Humphrey of the White House emailed Twitter, copying Rob Flaherty, with the subject line: “Flagging Hank Aaron misinfo.” The email stated: “Hey folks – Wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process for having it removed ASAP.” Id. Humphrey then linked to a Tweet by anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who
is also a principal target of the Virality Project and a member of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen.” Id. Humphrey added: “And then if we can keep an eye out for tweets that fall in this same ~genre that would be great.”
37. The White House’s demands for censorship continued relentlessly, and their tone was arrogant, demanding, and peremptory. On Saturday night, February 6, 2021, at 9:45 p.m., Rob Flaherty emailed Twitter to demand the immediate removal of a parody or impostor account linked to Finnegan Biden, Hunter Biden’s adult daughter. Doc. 174-1, at 4. He stated: “Please remove this account immediately.” Id. He also stated: “I have tried using your form three times and it won’t work—it is also ridiculous that I need to upload my id to a form [to] prove that I am an authorized representative of Finnegan Biden.”
38. Two minutes later, at 9:47 p.m., Twitter responded, “Thanks for sending this over. We’ll escalate for further review from here.” Id. Flaherty shot back, the same minute, “Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately.” Id. Forty-five minutes later, at 10:32 p.m., Twitter responded, “Update for you – account is now suspended.” Id. at 3-4.
I'm gna comment as I read.
This case is important.
But
It will not stop government censorship.
Always done it and will just adjust and keep right on doing it.
The only answer is in the purse.
Unfortunately the little old lady with the purse hates public opinion as much as anyone.
Thank you for this excellent piece on Missouri vs Biden.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial team has been willing to run editorials that disagree with government positions on topics like severity of Covid, lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. Their editorials have been more willing to question government policy than their news reporters.
I don't know if they have run any stories in Missouri vs Biden, but if not, pethaps they would be willing to do so.
Thanks, Matthew. Yes, there's a night-and-day difference between the WSJ's editorial/opinion side and their "straight news" side. I like the op-ed folks much better.
Since Facebook isn't working for you, I thought I'd try my hand at helping it work for you. My main post: "Please subscribe to my friend's stack, link below. Oh, you'll love the article." And in the comment, the link (I get away with putting a lot of such links in the main post now, but won't chance it here) with: "Tell Bill I sent you. We want to see how many subscribers--free or not, you need not pay--we can get him via a simple post like this."
As an INTJ I enjoy doing what I can for a likely fellow INTJ. Maybe nothing will happen. But why not try. May I encourage others to do the same?
Thanks, Doug! I really appreciate the thoughts and the interest in helping a fellow similar thinker. I don't think it can hurt. As I've written, I have more than 1,500 Facebook followers. I would estimate that 90 percent of these followers don't even know I write a Substack newsletter that is read in all 50 states and 90 countries. And I DO share some of my Substack articles on Facebook. I bet of my 3,850 subscribers, maybe 10 are from Facebook. These are the people who know me and I think like me. Weird. Maddening really.
Nice piece Bill!
Oops. Loaded observation.
('Course I'm referring to the pen which, when unsheathed from its holster is mightier than Kevin Bacon in Animal House: "Thank you, sir! May I have another!")
My blind brother dislikes memes, although I collect them from CFP open thread commenters like seashells on the lowtide beach.
I'd be sharing them as a substack reply if my tech skills and the alphabet agencies allowed. You're right! You're right! Conspiracy!
I'm all in on defending everyone the right to be heard, as well as the right to be ignored. Forcing people to listen, id est, required reading, is promoting a credentialed class of subject matter experts who set the agenda, promote the narrative and censor the dissent.
Thank you for digging!
The lack of intellectual curiosity of the masses is depressing, as are the bread & circuses. Edumacation is killing us.
Viva Ad Hominem! /Sarc
Reading thru the excerpts, leads me to belive the government censors could take down child porn.
They could. My worry is that everyone is against child porn and pedophilia (or almost everyone). If they used these "tools" for these good reasons, they'd just come back and say that they are using the same "safety" tools to block "dangerous" speech on vaccines or Global Warming skeptics, etc.
Alex Berenson has a piece on this at his site right now.
Any tool the government has will be abused.
Thanks for the link. Quite agree this case is most important. I do see that Jordan is going after the Stanford Truth Group, finally a benefit to the swing in the house. Sadly the average citizen will hear little about what has been done and the harm that may have been caused. An informed electorate is not on our government's agenda.
That is good to see and it did help when the Republicans got control of the House. "An informed electorate" is actually what they want to prevent and make impossible. As I write, it's one of the keys to their operations (one of their most-important "chess moves.").
"In a democracy, free speech is vitally important as it makes dissent from prevailing narratives possible and thus protects the “natural rights” of citizens who may hold minority views."
Bill - this may seem pedantic but I think it's important to bear in mind that the 1st Amendment protects everyone's right to HEAR dissenting views as well as the right to express them.
When you read these bullying diatribes from the White House's Mr. Flaherty, remember that all of that "sensational" content he wanted banned ... was actually TRUE and accurate information. In fact, it was information that could have SAVED lives ... if only more people saw it and thought about it. It was the government's "disinformation" that ended up killing and harming tens of millions of Americans.
66. On March 22, 2021, Flaherty responded to Facebook, demanding much more detailed information and action about “sensationalized” content on its platforms. Flaherty noted that White House officials were demanding a plan from Facebook to censor non- violative content, i.e., “looking out for your game plan on tackling vaccine hesitancy spread on your platform.” Id.
67. In this email, Flaherty badgered Facebook with a series of detailed requests for information about this issue of censoring vaccine-skeptical content that does not violate Facebook’s content-moderation policies, such as truthful but “sensational” content: “Again, as I've said, what we are looking for is the universe and scale of the problem. You noted that there is a level below sensational stories that get down-ranked, which took the form of general skepticism.
... [T]he problem does not sit in ‘microchips’-land, and ... it seems plausible that the things that drive the most actual hesitancy sit in ‘sensational’ and ‘skeptical.’” Id.. Flaherty demanded more information and greater censorship of such non-violative “sensational” and “skeptical” content: “If you're down ranking sensational stuff—great—but I want to know how effective you've seen that be from a market research perspective. And then, what interventions are being taken on ‘skepticism?’ ... [W]hat are you trying here, and again, how effective have you seen it be. And critically, what amount of content is falling into all of these buckets? Is there wider scale of skepticism than sensationalism? I assume given the Carnegie data and the studies I've seen in the press that you have this. ... As I've said: this is not to play gotcha. It is to get a sense of what you are doing to manage this.”
If I was going to identify "Big Brother's" top enforcer, it would be Rob Flaherty, a key WH aide who seemingly worked 24-7/365 days a year to pressure social media companies to impose far greater censorship. If he was a female, I would call this guy a "wicked witch."
57. Flaherty responded in accusatory fashion, referring to a series of at least three previous oral conversations in which the White House had demanded more information from Facebook about its censorship policies. Id. at 11. Flaherty made clear that the White House was seeking more aggressive action on “borderline” content—i.e., content that does not clearly violate Facebook’s own censorship policies but the White House demands action against anyway. Flaherty wrote: “I don't think this is a misunderstanding ... I've been asking you guys pretty directly, over a series of conversations, for a clear accounting of the biggest issues you are seeing on your platform when it comes to vaccine hesitancy, and the degree to which borderline content- -as you define it-- is playing a role …”
A Mr. Slavitt is another Engerizer Bunny (Gestapo enforcer?) when it comes to more and more censorship ... For example (and there are many such examples in this document) ...
61. Slavitt then made an ominous statement threatening unspecified Executive action against Facebook in retaliation for Facebook’s perceived lack of cooperation with the White House’s demands on censorship of “borderline” (non-violative) content: “Internally we have been considering our options on what to do about it.” Id. at 10 (emphasis added).
As noted in my article, evidence showing White House demands for more censorship are seemingly never-ending. Here's some more examples ....
37. The White House’s demands for censorship continued relentlessly, and their tone was arrogant, demanding, and peremptory. On Saturday night, February 6, 2021, at 9:45 p.m., Rob Flaherty emailed Twitter to demand the immediate removal of a parody or impostor account linked to Finnegan Biden, Hunter Biden’s adult daughter. Doc. 174-1, at 4. He stated: “Please remove this account immediately.” Id. He also stated: “I have tried using your form three times and it won’t work—it is also ridiculous that I need to upload my id to a form [to] prove that I am an authorized representative of Finnegan Biden.”
38. Two minutes later, at 9:47 p.m., Twitter responded, “Thanks for sending this over. We’ll escalate for further review from here.” Id. Flaherty shot back, the same minute, “Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately.” Id. Forty-five minutes later, at 10:32 p.m., Twitter responded, “Update for you – account is now suspended.” Id. at 3-4.
40. Twitter noted that it had been recently bombarded with such requests for censorship from the White House: “we would prefer to have a streamlined process strictly with your team as the internal liaison. That is the most efficient and effective way to ensure we are prioritizing requests. In a given day last week for example, we had more than four different people within the White House reaching out for issues.” Id. at 3.
41. The next day, Monday, February 8, 2021, Facebook emailed Rob Flaherty, Courtney Rowe, and Clarke Humphrey of the White House to explain how it had recently expanded its COVID-19 censorship policies. Doc. 174-1, at 7-8. Facebook stated: “We wanted to make sure you saw our announcements today about running the largest worldwide campaign to promote authoritative COVID-19 vaccine information and expanding our efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general during the pandemic.” Id.
42. Under the heading “Combating Vaccine Misinformation,” Facebook provided a detailed list of expanded censorship policies: “We are expanding our efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general during the pandemic. Since December [i.e. during the Biden transition], we've removed false claims about COVID-19 vaccines that have been debunked by public health experts. ... [W]e are expanding the list of false claims we will remove to include additional debunked claims about the coronavirus and vaccines. ... Groups, Pages and accounts on Facebook and Instagram that repeatedly share these debunked claims may be removed altogether. We are also requiring some admins for groups with admins or members who have violated our COVID-19 policies to temporarily approve all posts within their group. .... On Instagram, in addition to surfacing authoritative results in Search, in the coming weeks we're making it harder to find accounts in search that discourage people from getting vaccinated....”
43. This was not nearly enough for the White House. Within 19 minutes of receiving this email, Flaherty responded, pressing Facebook for more information about how strict the new policies are. Id. at 7. Quoting Facebook’s email in italics, he wrote: “This line, of course, stands out: that repeatedly share these debunked claims may be removed altogether. Can you share more about your framework here? May, of course, is very different than ‘will.’ Is there a strike policy, ala Youtube? Does the severity of the claims matter?” Id. at 7. He also asked for specific data on the application of the censorship policies: “And as far as your removal of claims, do you have data on the actual number of claims - related posts you've removed? Do you have a sense of how many are being flagged versus how many are being removed? Are there actions (downranking, etc) that sit before removal?
How are you handling things that are dubious, but not provably false?” Id.
I wonder What my readers (or American citizens) think of tactics or meetings like these ...
44. The next day, February 9, 2021, Flaherty followed up with Facebook with a demand for more information and an accusation (to be repeated) that Facebook’s failure to censor speech on its platforms causes “political violence”: “All, especially given the Journal’s reporting on your internal work on political violence spurred by Facebook groups, I am also curious about the new rules as part of the ‘overhaul.’ I am seeing that you will no longer promote civic and health related groups, but I am wondering if the reforms here extend further? Are there other growth vectors you are controlling for?” Flaherty suggested an oral meeting to discuss: “Happy to put time on the calendar to discuss further.” Id.
45. Facebook responded on February 9, 2021, with a detailed answer to each of Flaherty’s questions about the enforcement of its new policies. Facebook also noted that “We are happy to discuss these and additional questions as per your recent note.” Among other things, Facebook reported that it would “suspend the entire Page, Group, or account” in case of repeat violations; that it “will begin enforcing this policy immediately,” that for vaccine-skeptical content that does not violate Facebook’s policies, Facebook will “reduce its distribution and add strong warning labels with more context, so fewer people see the post,” and that Facebook was working to censor content that does not violate its policies in other ways by “prevent[ing] posts discouraging vaccines from going viral on our platforms; address[ing] content that experts believe dissuades people from getting the vaccine, but does not violate our misinformation policies, through the use of information labels; and prevent[ing] recommendations for Groups, Pages, and Instagram accounts that repeatedly push content discouraging vaccines,” id. at 6.
46. Facebook advised Flaherty that it was relying on advice of “public health authorities” to determine its censorship policies: “In consultation with leading health
organizations, we continuously expand the list of false claims that we remove about COVID-19 and vaccines during the pandemic. We remove claims public health authorities tell us have been debunked or are unsupported by evidence.” Id. at 6 (emphasis added).
47. Facebook also promised Flaherty that it would aggressively enforce the new censorship policies: “We will begin enforcing this policy immediately, with a particular focus on Pages, Groups and accounts that violate these rules, and we'll continue to expand our enforcement over the coming weeks.” Id. at 5.
48. Facebook then followed up to “see when you would like to have a meeting arranged to speak to our misinformation team reps about the latest updates. They also have a more detailed misinformation analysis prepared based on the discussions/questions from the previous meetings during the transition time period.” Id. at 5.
49. This email makes clear that Flaherty, as part of the Biden transition team, had already engaged in “previous meetings” and “discussions/questions” with Facebook about censorship of COVID-19 misinformation on its platforms during the Presidential transition period from November 2020 to January 2021. Id.
As I point out in my article, it's more than "Covid misinformation." Election misinformation is another big censorship topic. That is, if you think some election was stolen or fraudulent, you can't say that on social media. Here's some statements made by Biden and his vice president.
19. Then-candidate and now-President Biden has led this charge. He has tripled down on these threats of adverse official action from his colleagues and allies in senior federal-government positions. His threats of adverse government action have been among the most vociferous, and among the most clearly linked to calls for more aggressive censorship of disfavored speakers and speech by social-media companies.
20. For example, on January 17, 2020, then-candidate Biden stated, in an interview with the New York Times editorial board, that Section 230 of the CDA should be “revoked” because social- media companies like Facebook did not do enough to censor supposedly false information in the form of political ads criticizing him—i.e., core political speech. He stated: “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms.” He also stated, “And it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.... There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally irresponsible.” Glenn Decl. Ex. 19, at 27; Doc. 10-1, at 275.
21. Candidate Biden also threatened that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg should be subject to civil liability and even criminal prosecution for not censoring such core political speech: “He should be submitted to civil liability and his company to civil liability.... Whether he engaged in something and amounted to collusion that in fact caused harm that would in fact be equal to a criminal offense, that’s a different issue. That’s possible. That’s possible it could happen.” Id. In other words, Biden’s message—not long before he became President of the United States—was that if Facebook did not censor political ads against him, Zuckerberg should go to prison. These two threats echoed the same threats made by numerous political allies of the President since 2019, cited above.
22. During the presidential campaign, now-Vice President Harris made similar threats against social-media firms to pressure them to engage in more aggressive censorship of speakers, content, and viewpoints she disfavors. For example, in addition to the statements cited above, she stated in 2019: “We will hold social media platforms responsible for the hate infiltrating their platforms, because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. And if you profit off of hate—if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyberwarfare, if you don’t police your platforms—we are going to hold you accountable as a community.”
23. In or around June 2020, the Biden campaign published an open letter and online petition (ironically, on Facebook) calling for Facebook to engage in more aggressive censorship of core political speech and viewpoints that then-Candidate Biden disfavored. The open letter complained that Facebook “continues to allow Donald Trump to say anything — and to pay to ensure that his wild claims reach millions of voters. Super PACs and other dark money groups are following his example. Trump and his allies have used Facebook to spread fear and misleading information about voting.... We call for Facebook to proactively stem the tide of false information by no longer amplifying untrustworthy content and promptly fact-checking election-related material that goes viral. We call for Facebook to stop allowing politicians to hide behind paid misinformation in the hope that the truth will catch up only after Election Day. There should be a two-week pre- election period during which all political advertisements must be fact-checked before they are permitted to run on Facebook. ... Anything less will render Facebook a tool of misinformation that corrodes our democracy.”
24. The online petition demanded that Facebook “[p]romote real news, not fake news,” “[q]uickly remove viral misinformation,” and “[e]nforce voter suppression rules against
everyone—even the President [Trump].” Glenn Decl. Ex. 24, at 2; Doc. 10-1, at 304. The petition complained that Facebook “continues to amplify misinformation and lets candidates pay to target and confuse voters with lies.” It demanded that Facebook “promote authoritative and trustworthy sources of election information, rather than rants of bad actors and conspiracy theorists,” “promptly remove false, viral information,” and “prevent political candidates and PACs from using paid advertising to spread lies and misinformation – especially within two weeks of election day.” Id. at 305.