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).
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.)
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.”
Jun 19, 2023·edited Jun 19, 2023Liked by Bill Rice, Jr.
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.
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?
('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.
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.
"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 …”
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.
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).
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.)
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.”
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.
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?
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
Damn good job
Reading thru the excerpts, leads me to belive the government censors could take down child porn.
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.
"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 …”
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.