Latest Misinformation Sweep by authorities: Dr Dhand's

On the subject of information - Judicial Watch: CDC Coordinated with Facebook On COVID Messaging and ‘Misinformation’; CDC Received Over $3.5 Million in Free Advertising from Social Media Companies

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch announced today that it received 2,469 pages of new documents from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which reveal that Facebook coordinated closely with the CDC to control the COVID narrative and “misinformation” and that over $3.5 million in free advertising given to the CDC by social media companies. ​
​
These new documents were received in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Health of Human Services (No. 1:21-cv-00625)) lawsuit for: ​
​
Any and all records of communication between CDC officials and/or employees and employees, agents, and/or representatives of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, and YouTube concerning, regarding, or relating to COVID-19 related content on company platforms. Such records include, but are not limited to, any advice or instructions issued on disinformation re COVID-19. ​
​
The documents show collusion between the CDC and Big Tech on Covid-19 message and misinformation: More at Source.​
​
Some will correctly, IMHO, argue that a business such as FB should be able to decide what content it allows. The FOIA documents would suggest that FB is actually acting as a proxy for the government and therefore an extension thereof.
 
Murrmurr said:
You have to remember that social platforms, including You Tube, are monitored/moderated.

Where You Tube (and others) could improve their "censorship" is by saying something like "this video violates rules" rather than imply that it's not factual. Or in other words, the platform itself should take responsibility when flagging a video by citing rule violations instead of accusing the poster of being "wrong" about their content, or implying that the poster is being nefarious.
Click to expand...
But, the issue is they are not consistent when applying the rules. Some, like Louis Farrakhan can post his unsubstantiated trash or some of the Oligarchs in this country can post their dribble, but others less known can’t post their thoughts. And, yes, I was suspended by YouTube for 60 days last year posting something that was true, but didn’t fit their agenda.

Maybe if Musk is allowed to purchase Twitter, some free speech will return
 

oldman said:
But, the issue is they are not consistent when applying the rules. Some, like Louis Farrakhan can post his unsubstantiated trash or some of the Oligarchs in this country can post their dribble, but others less known can’t post their thoughts. And, yes, I was suspended by YouTube for 60 days last year posting something that was true, but didn’t fit their agenda.

Maybe if Musk is allowed to purchase Twitter, some free speech will return
Click to expand...
Yeah, YouTube's censorship protective algorithm is suspiciously uneven.
 
When I had the store I had a public bulletin board. Every so often something was posted there I found objectionable and I removed it. My store, my bulletin board, my rules. How does what these companies are doing differ from what I did?

First Amendment : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​


Social media companies are just that-- companies, not the government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top