Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Reporters Rush to Defend White House After Peter Doocy Calls ‘Misinformation Flagging’ Campaign ‘Spying’

Reporters Rush to Defend White House After Peter Doocy Calls ‘Misinformation Flagging’ Campaign ‘Spying’

“Once again, we see another example of just lies making their way into the airwaves. But, again, that Fox correspondent has every right to lie or be mistaken about this,” CNN’s Jake Tapper said of Fox News reporter Peter Doocy.

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1416095333877260292

As per the norm, Fox News White House correspondent Peter Doocy nailed the Biden White House Friday after their Thursday announcement about how they were “flagging problematic [COVID] posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”

During the heated exchange, which took place during the Friday press briefing, Doocy referred to what the administration was doing as “spying,” which Psaki took issue with.

Psaki responded to Doocy’s pointed questioning by saying in so many words that it couldn’t be “spying” because it was publicly available information. She also drew equivalencies between the White House’s interactions with the press corps and their communications with Big Tech entities, apparently hoping people don’t understand that there is a difference between the White House being obligated to communicate with the press corps versus them trawling the social media accounts of private citizens for alleged misinformation to report to said social media platforms.

Doocy tripped her up throughout the exchange, basically getting her to admit that the Biden administration’s position on working with social media companies in a Big Brother-type capacity to censor private citizens was only being done in an effort to save lives.

For those who missed it, watch their back and forth below:

Not surprisingly, the big story for the Democrat apologists at “news” outlets like the Washington Post and CNN was not how Psaki was trying to justify the administration being in regular contact with Facebook concerning the posts of private citizens but the fact that Doocy dared to call it for what it was:

Here’s how CNN’s Jake Tapper described Doocy’s questioning of Psaki:

“At the same briefing, somebody from Fox, which also has a lot of people on who say things about the vaccine that are not true, asked a question premised on a lie, which was that the White House was going through people’s Facebook pages and private information to come up with this list. It’s not true. But, once again, we see another example of just lies making their way into the airwaves. But, again, that Fox correspondent has every right to lie or be mistaken about this.”

Tapper’s comments start at about the 4:45 mark of the below video:

Where’s the “lie”? How is it “not spying” when the federal government goes digging for information posted by private citizens? Just because it’s doesn’t require a warrant to find out the information, does that make it any less dangerous? I think a case could be made that it’s even more dangerous because the White House is being so brazenly unapologetic about what they’re doing as if it’s perfectly normal, which also includes calling for across-the-board social media platform bans if a user has only been banned on one of them.

Let’s remember, too, that the White House attempting to work with places like Facebook to crack down on alleged “misinformation” is not a new development. In fact, though the Biden administration has admitted they have teams of people patrolling Facebook (“Within the Surgeon General’s Office, we’re flagging posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” Psaki said Thursday), there’s also data they’ve been waiting on Facebook to provide, which means not everything they’re looking for from private citizens on Facebook is publicly available for just anyone to find:

Tapper and Blake both deservedly got blasted for their ridiculous hot takes:

The White House working with Facebook to censor content they disapprove of and also partnering with SMS carriers to flag alleged misinformation in text messages are things Republicans, Democrats, the media, and everyone in between should all be in agreement in terms of it being disturbing news.

Except in predictable fashion, the media and Democrats have drawn partisan lines in the sand and have declared that people (and reporters) who don’t appreciate the government trying to shut down voices they don’t like are the real problem. Further, not one person seems to be willing to pinpoint just who it is that gets to define what “misinformation” actually is.

Maddening.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


 
 0 
 
 9
CommoChief | July 17, 2021 at 11:24 am

Maybe a better term than spying is cyber stalking. Either way it’s not virtuous regardless of motive.

For anyone to proclaim that government coordination with private actors to suppress or eliminate speech is a good idea is ludicrous. The govt is precluded from outsourcing violations of the Constitution. They can’t order, demand, coerce or encourage this suppression.

The tech giants are beset from all sides politically and are justifiably afraid that the regulatory framework designed in their infancy to protect them as they grew will be modified to reflect their current status as de facto monopolies.

To suggest the tech social media is immune from pressure applied by the WH is disingenuous at best. I feel certain that those applauding this suppression or defending it would also encourage some version of a social credit system.

Surely someone in the WH can act like a grown up and send these children and their bad ideas to bed. If they don’t they will only have themselves to blame for the consequences of their failure to act with restraint.


     
     18 
     
     0
    mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 11:29 am

    Balancing freedom of speech issues is hard but as a basic principle allowing people to lie or completely misrepresent something in context of a health issue is not acceptable.


       
       0 
       
       14
      McGehee in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 11:59 am

      And yet here you are, not being silenced.


       
       0 
       
       7
      CommoChief in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 12:02 pm

      So you agree with the premise of the WH that misinformation should result in suppression of speech. Ok Now apply that standard to every flip flop from the public health community and govt officials and hell to FB and Twitter.

      Start with these:
      ‘ masks are unnecessary’ and ‘lab leak theory is false’

      Unpopular opinion and even false opinion is protected speech. The government can’t pick and choose which speech is approved then coerce private actors to implement their suppression of unapproved speech.

      No matter the topic. Not under any circumstances.


         
         9 
         
         0
        mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 2:27 pm

        There is a substantive difference to reporting the science as currently known and spouting demonstrably glade statements about vaccines

        With respect to the lab leak theory that didn’t have a public health implication so I would say removing that speech was unjustified. In this case there is a clear justification. In the case of Covid and masks the science evolved so I’m not clear on what basis you’d ban speech that is out of date.

        With respect the first amendment isn’t a blanket right in all cases. It’s pretty clear that taking the extreme view leads to absurd and dangerous results. It’s also the case that the worst punishment is getting removed from Facebook big bloody deal. There is a degree of proportionality here, we aren’t talking about prison we are talking about Facebook. Which is shit anyways so probably doing them a favour.


           
           0 
           
           4
          CommoChief in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 3:07 pm

          Repression and censorship one of the marks of a totalitarian regime. Protection of unpopular opinion is the purpose of the 1st amendment.

          Who are you or the WH to decide what speech is good and what speech is bad?

          Re: FB ok the WH wants complete silence across all platforms. So YouTube pulls or de monetize. Now it’s a financial hit.

          This is a dangerous path. Think about this. All these overreaching executive orders and WH actions of Biden. Now give DJT the same leeway in 2025.

          Let DJT in 2025 decide which speech is good and bad and who is deplatformed. Think on that and you might show more caution.


           
           1 
           
           0
          mark311 in reply to mark311. | July 18, 2021 at 10:27 am

          You’ve said it in one, Opinion. Anyone can clearly state there opinion and that’s fine but we aren’t talking about opinions we are talking about facts. Clearly there are cases of genuine concern such as where willow has pointed out but the idea you can allow people to spew out conspiracy theories that almost certainly result in people’s deaths is far removed from the realms of acceptable.

          In many cases the claims being censored are absolutely false. It seems entirely reasonable to say that they have been categorised as demonstrably false by numerous experts.

          With respect to the implications on freedom of speech in terms of some kind of precedent I’m not really clear that’s the case since there aren’t actually any legal implications. Facebook etc have agreed with the position taken by the WH. There is no new case law as a result of this. The real question is where there are grey areas how far does it go. Willows links (I haven’t explored in depth) were excellent examples of where there might well be genuine over reach. It’s those edge cases that are really the most interesting and the most problematic, you’d be wiser to focus on those.


         
         0 
         
         1
        randian in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 4:06 pm

        Government isn’t coercing anybody. Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and Google are willing participants in the government’s censorship schemes.

          I think this is so because if Trump were in the WH (or any Republican) there is no way these social media giants would censor leftist lies and spin to ensure only the right-leaning narrative was permitted. That said, it doesn’t change the fact that the government is out-sourcing speech censorship that they cannot get away with on their own. As others have pointed out, this relationship between government and business, particularly to limit citizens’ rights, is pretty much the picture of fascism.

          And to anyone who thinks this is only about COVID or vaccines, please stop it. This is what the left does. They start with something a lot of people (who are not me) would agree with (taking down Civil War monuments, flags, and statues, anyone?) and then they expand it until it’s everything they can dream up (tearing down statues of Lincoln and those erected by former slaves to honor the end of slavery in the U.S.). Any Republican who gets on board with this is done as far as I am concerned (see: Nikki Haley rushing to allow the left to tear down Confederate statues, etc. despite being told repeatedly it would not end there.)


           
           0 
           
           2
          CommoChief in reply to randian. | July 17, 2021 at 6:42 pm

          randian,

          I get the feeling that they were. Why? Timing.
          WH reaches to tech for ‘assistance’. Tech complies in part but not as much as WH wants.

          WH gets frustrated and ‘requests’ more. Tech refuses to go further. WH then trots all this out in public on Thursday. Tech users/subscribers and general public now alarmed that tech is selling them out yet again.

          Psaki doubles down on Friday and Biden jumps the shark accusing FB of murder for not removing everything. FB fires back at WH publicly to create some distance.

          We don’t have direct evidence of coercion but tech understands the regulatory forbearance they enjoy could be jeopardized by a hostile WH.

          All will be revealed sooner or later. Either way the reading will be interesting.


       
       0 
       
       7
      lichau in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 12:44 pm

      Uhhh. Who gets to decide what is a “lie”?

      I know, I know. The “smart people”.


         
         13 
         
         0
        mark311 in reply to lichau. | July 17, 2021 at 2:28 pm

        If it can be demonstrated clearly to be a lie then anyone.


           
           0 
           
           4
          thetaqjr in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 4:30 pm

          You are circling, Mark. Folks can disagree without resort to lying.

          Someone has to decide what data to collect and test. Someone must decide what design the experiment (demonstration) will take, and then decide if the results demonstrate what was asserted.

          And, as you know, the demonstrator must publish the results for peer review in an effort to reach a consensus, a conclusion.

          And consensus is not proof, it’s more of a vote. There will still be men and women of good faith and world class training who will vehemently disagree.

          Regarding Global warming, for example, the assertion of the existence of GENERAL INTELLIGENCE in humans, and systemic racism accounts for all social ills, these topics are hotly debated, CAUSE PEOPLE GOTDAMN DISAGREEE!


           
           9 
           
           0
          mark311 in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 5:33 pm

          @thetaqjr

          Sure sometimes people disagree without lying but the question here is whether the information that is being out is of such a dubious and dangerous nature that society would benefit from it being removed.

          Sorry are you claiming there is a debate about the human causes of climate change ? General intelligence sure there is a debate. System racism well I think the debate is around the extents of it not whether it exists.


           
           0 
           
           4
          thetaqjr in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 8:32 pm

          Sorry are you claiming there’s *a debate about the human causes of climate change?*

          I’m pretty sure that the debate is about the extent of the change, and what and whose resources should be force forfeited today in order to transform chimera into a human being.

          *General intelligence sure there is a debate.*

          You claimed earlier that Dr Murray’s study of IQ even as one component determining socioeconomic status was debunked.

          I believe the academics who’d like to confirm or deny his study are scared to publish. If his claims were in large part correct, who’s going to sustain such publicly?

          The crickets are telling a tale.

          *System racism well I think the debate is around the extents of it not whether it exists.*

          My Sweet Lord, oh, My Lord

          In my view, the state and federal government’s rules have absolutely imbued our economy with *systemic racism*.

          What system?

          The system of private property?

          Members of minorities can own private property, they can establish associations to congregate $$, Oprah ought to be providing seed money. Wealth is not built overnight, as it were, Bill, Obama, Hillary, Michelle, 16 yrs of fabulous compound interest.

          Minority members can choose to live in any state in this country, in any county of that chosen state, without reprisal.

          And the affluent members do, subject to market prices.

          The restrictions on job entry, restrictions jobs in which those members would like to employ themselves, those jobs are killed by government rules.

          Greed?

          Government gobbles up, see, I don’t remember, one quarter of private production, puts that quarter promoting unproductive acts. (See that factory over there, Mr Obama, whoever did build it, it wasn’t you. Go sail something.)

          Socialist ideas seem contradictory, re economics. White folks, yellow folks, other folks are greedy greedy capitalists, money hongry, and yet they refuse to hire the most productive members of society, $$$economically speaking, anybody not so identifiably couloured.


           
           1 
           
           0
          mark311 in reply to mark311. | July 18, 2021 at 10:44 am

          @thetaqjr

          Thanks for clarifying you support the science behind climate change. For a moment I thought you were making a more dubious claim. Sure there is a debate about the extents but it’s pretty universal in agreement that the situation is very serious.

          Im not clear what you mean by transform chimera into a human being?

          With respect to intelligence those were tow different claims. General intelligence as as defined by IQ is inadequate according to many. There is a debate as to what captures intelligence. The claim I made with respect to Murray wasn’t that at all. If you re read my post you’ll see the specific details of my claim ( I’m not going to repeat here).

          With respect to system racism. Hmm you seem to have suffered from a word salad moment. I’m not really clear you’ve understood any of the issues at all. Or remotely reflected on any of the examples I gave you. The fact of the matter is there is system racism in a variety of forms. It’s pretty undeniable that blacks have been forced historically into redlined areas and as a consequence poverty, poor education (which related to property tax and education) has had a serious and substantive impact over many years on blacks. That’s one example. It’s like having a player in monopoly start 4 turns in they are still obeying the same rules and the game is completely equal it’s just that the old players have had 4 turns to buy all the property.


       
       0 
       
       3
      FOAF in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 1:41 pm

      marky mark earning his ramen for the Stasi.


       
       0 
       
       5
      willow in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 3:42 pm

         
         6 
         
         0
        mark311 in reply to willow. | July 17, 2021 at 5:40 pm

        It’s a question of balance, in the case you cite they have clearly over reached. There is a distinct difference between outright lies and peddling of misinformation Vs the opinion of a world expert on the nuances of the overall policy.


           
           0 
           
           3
          caseoftheblues in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 8:30 pm

          So by your reasoning and your rules.. when adults get back in power they can shut down all talk, discussion even mention of your global warming…cooling……..whatever….because its fake and disinformation and what the cultists who believe in it propose to do will kill tens of millions…


           
           2 
           
           0
          mark311 in reply to mark311. | July 18, 2021 at 10:45 am

          @case of the blues

          That’s not remotely what I’ve argued.

          Taking your example no adults agree with your proposition that climate change is fake.thats the most moronic statement I’ve heard today.


         
         0 
         
         1
        Paddy M in reply to willow. | July 17, 2021 at 10:26 pm

        His credentials are reading an article in a leftwing rag and repeating it here.


     
     0 
     
     6
    Idonttweet in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 12:31 pm

    spy – to detect; catch sight of, discover, find, uncover

    The administration has acknowledged monitoring the social media accounts of several entities they say are “spreading misinformation” and passing that on to the social media platforms for them to censor. Who gets to decide what is “misinformation” and who has anointed them as the Source of all True Wisdom?

    What is the administration doing identifying people who are saying things the administration doesn’t like and stripping them of their right to free speech as though they were enemies of the state? I thought that was exactly the kind of speech explicitly protected by the First Amendment. Rebutting what is said is completely different than silencing what you fear.

    Social media companies are acting as agents of the government when they censor people at government’s behest and that makes the First Amendment applicable to them.

    I seem to recall that, not too long ago the White House Press Secretary was herself spreading misinformation by claiming that Republicans wanted to defund the police. Can we expect the White House to be de-platformed?


     
     0 
     
     0
    randian in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 4:10 pm

    Lawsuits will fail precisely because the government isn’t ordering, demanding, or coercing. Big tech media are willing co-conspirators. SCOTUS limits deemed government actor status to “core government functions”, and DoJ will argue that censorship isn’t a core government function and therefore that status doesn’t apply to their co-conspirators.


       
       0 
       
       0
      CommoChief in reply to randian. | July 17, 2021 at 6:31 pm

      randian,

      That is one big circle of reasoning. CTs behave strangely at times. Perhaps they will accept your circular argument that the government can collude with private actors to censor if those actors do so willingly.

      That’s a hell of magic wand you are relying upon to turn the unconstitutional into the constitutional by simply adding willing conspirators.

      Personally, I don’t buy it but I ain’t a Judge so you don’t have to worry about convincing me.


 
 17 
 
 0
mark311 | July 17, 2021 at 11:27 am

“Where’s the “lie”? How is it “not spying” when the federal government goes digging for information posted by private citizens”

The government isn’t looking at Facebook posts it’s asking Facebook to take the posts down which blatantly spread falsehoods about vaccines. That’s a pretty clear distinction! So yes claiming the government is directly censoring citizens is at best a gross mischarachterisation of the information available presently available


     
     0 
     
     8
    gonzotx in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 11:37 am

    Poor poor Mark


     
     0 
     
     11
    CommoChief in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 12:11 pm

    Mark,

    Psaki admitted, proudly proclaimed in fact, that the WH Covid team in general and the office of the Surgeon General specifically, was:
    1. Scouring the platforms to find ‘misinformation’
    2. Identifying the persons/groups posting it
    3. Alerting the tech companies of their findings
    4. Flagging the content
    5. Directly coordinating with the tech companies to suppress or remove the content

    So yes, in fact the government is looking at content.

      The only thing Doocy missed was one final question to put the last nail in the coffin.

      “So if the previous administration did exactly what you propose, would you have supported it?”

      Heads would have exploded right there in the press room.


       
       7 
       
       0
      mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 2:33 pm

      That still doesn’t equate to spying or censoring since they are public forums and it’s still Facebook’s decision


         
         0 
         
         5
        CommoChief in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 3:13 pm

        Mark,

        You stated, incorrectly, that the government isn’t looking at FB content. That is untrue. It is false. It is misleading. It is misinformation.

        You have advocated for the removal of those who make misleading statements and use misinformation. Kindly apply that to yourself or drop the issue.


           
           3 
           
           1
          mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 5:25 pm

          You gave further information and I corrected my statement. You haven’t actually demonstrated any aspect of your argument. There is no evidence of coercion there is no evidence of malfeasance. All you’ve done is state all speech must stay up. That’s your view which is fine but there are plenty of people who think those who are spreading lies that could and have resulted in deaths is not acceptable. The first amendment isn’t a blanket right to do whatever you want. You can’t say literally anything free of any consequence. That’s a stupid argument to make given the damage such lies in the world we live in do.


           
           0 
           
           2
          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 7:05 pm

          Mark,

          I didn’t state all speech must stay up. In this thread or any other. If the government has a firm legal foundation to use the extremely narrow guide posts to censor speech then they should do so.

          They have not. I contend that this failure to directly act tells us whether they believe they possess a foundation here.

          The immediate thread here is your insistence that the WH didn’t review content. You were incorrect and therefore spread misinformation. I didn’t see your correction or admission.

          I do see you trying to sidestep with a straw man. You should probably stop digging.

          Why even bother, CommoChief? Really. Why?


           
           0 
           
           4
          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 8:39 pm

          Fuzzy,

          Mostly because I’m bored. 😇 Also because I truly believe in refuting bad speech with good speech, not banning, suppressing or censoring speech I don’t like.

          Oh, I so agree (on my stints as LI comment mod, editor, general dog’s body, I rarely feel that @mark311 crossed the line sufficinet to be banned from commenting here. Ditto many others who are often vile (threatening, telling people to kill themselves, and etc.).

          . . . . Honestly, if I could, I would find this whole thing interesting.


           
           0 
           
           2
          Paddy M in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 9:45 pm

          marx comes in flying hot and ill-informed as usual. He’s the type that you buy for what he’s worth and sell for what he thinks he worth.


           
           0 
           
           4
          UserP in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 11:45 pm

          Fuzzy,

          The problem is that sometimes a person comes here to deliberately post outrageous remarks in order to get people to argue with them and in the process the thread is hijacked and the whole thing becomes nothing more than a long discussion about one person.

          Um, okay. But I’m not sure I get your point here, UserP. I want to, but it seems to be flying over my head. If you think you can sway @mark311, go for it. He’s your guest now. Please see that he doesn’t urinate and defecate on the floor, carpets, furniture,

          And. . . .

          As to the three-hijackers, we are working on that, please be patient with us as we sort this out.


           
           0 
           
           0
          mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | July 20, 2021 at 6:10 am

          @commochief

          “I do see you trying to sidestep with a straw man. You should probably stop digging.”

          With respect but the central aspect of the argument is that the speech being curtailed on Facebook is misinformation and dangerous. Your argument appears to be that the Government should tell and not ask Facebook to do the right thing. Why exactly should that be the case. Its clear that these posts being restricted are anti-vaxers and a serious public health threat. Its hard to see why on earth you wouldn’t want these posts removed.

          If you have a different point reframe it because i’m not seeing your point.


         
         1 
         
         0
        mark311 in reply to mark311. | July 18, 2021 at 10:55 am

        I’ve already explicitly stated that the WH reviewing posts doesn’t change the argument. Your claim appears to be that by asking instead of telling Facebook to restrict certain messages that it automatically becomes illegal. I’m not clear what legal issue is at stake here. Facebook has every right to say yay or nay to the WH


       
       0 
       
       3
      healthguyfsu in reply to CommoChief. | July 18, 2021 at 2:15 am

      This site is a doing a disservice by not upgrading the board enough to include an ignore feature.

      mark and his band of trolls maintain their rights to post and we enjoy the much desired convenience of reducing clutter and returning to fruitful discussions without his daily pollutions and inane “arguments”.


     
     0 
     
     5
    Idonttweet in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 12:58 pm

    ”..blatantly spread falsehoods about vaccines.”

    Like what?

    The vaccines are unapproved? None of them have received FDA approval as to effectiveness and safety. They are all currently in clinical trials, which is like experimental testing and everybody who has received the vaccine is an experimental test subject. The current push to vaccinate the world are the clinical trials.

    Numbers from the CDC and VAERS report over nine thousand deaths from the vaccine, and for the second week in a row there are more deaths reported from the vaccine than from COVID-19.

    Fully vaccinated individuals are testing positive for the virus, calling into question the effectiveness of the vaccine.

    What falsehoods?


       
       1 
       
       0
      gibbie in reply to Idonttweet. | July 17, 2021 at 1:32 pm

      “Numbers from the CDC and VAERS report over nine thousand deaths from the vaccine, and for the second week in a row there are more deaths reported from the vaccine than from COVID-19.”

      I hope you won’t be offended if I point out that this is an example of misleading information.

      The proper comparison would be between the number of deaths prevented by the vaccines and the number of deaths caused by the vaccines. As usual in this impenetrable miasma of a pandemic, neither of these numbers can be known with any accuracy, but I think that a reasonable risk analysis still greatly favors taking the vaccine – especially if one considers the large number of post-COVID sufferers.

      The difference between the Biden administration, the tech monopolies, mark311, and me is that I would never ever suggest stopping anyone from publishing the above sentence.


         
         0 
         
         1
        caseoftheblues in reply to gibbie. | July 17, 2021 at 8:36 pm

        Oh so the proper comparison is real deaths to imaginary ones…got it


         
         0 
         
         1
        Milwaukee in reply to gibbie. | July 17, 2021 at 10:05 pm

        …. deaths prevented by the vaccines….
        Since the CDC changed and confused the issues about what it means to have Wuhan Flu with improper use of the test, and confused dying with Wuhan Flu and dying of Wuhan Flu, your “deaths prevented by the vaccines” is pretty much any number you find on your used toilet paper after you have wiped your ass.


         
         0 
         
         0
        murkyv in reply to gibbie. | July 18, 2021 at 11:35 pm

        Sorry for the downtwinkle

        Fat fingers


       
       7 
       
       0
      mark311 in reply to Idonttweet. | July 17, 2021 at 2:38 pm

      If you are refering to the full approval procedure sure. However given the millions of doses issued it fair to say that the vaccines have been thoroughly tested. The number of adverse effects documented is pretty low. It’s also the case that the FDA gave emergency approval , that still required a substantive amount of data.

      VAERS has not reported 9000 deaths from the vaccines. It’s reported 9000 deaths from those who have had been vaccinated who have died. The deaths haven’t been linked to the vaccine. Jesus talk about misrepresenting the facts.

      Even your figures are wrong

      “Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 334 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through July 12, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 6,079 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines. However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.”

      Only 3000 out


         
         0 
         
         4
        nordic_prince in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 4:36 pm

        Emergency Use AUTHORIZATION, not “approval.”

        No, the “vaccines” have NOT been “thoroughly tested” since there is NO long term data. Neither you nor any of the “geniuses” in the CDC, the NIH, or Big Pharma have any clue about long-term safety or adverse reactions because the shot was rushed through. You can speed things up somewhat by eliminating red tape and paperwork, but the gathering of long-term safety data CANNOT be sped up. It’s not that difficult a concept to grasp – you can’t hit fast forward on the clock.

        NO ONE can say whether or not the millions of people who have had a shot will experience pathogenic priming, to name one example. That is a real possibility, given previous animal trials with mRNA therapy.

        NO ONE can say whether or not there will be long-term effects on fertility. The spike protein, which the shot “instructs” the body to produce, concentrates in the ovaries, for one thing. Nearly 80% of pregnant women who took the shot in their 1st trimester ended up with a miscarriage. That’s one helluva “coincidence.”

        Children are 50X MORE likely to die from the “covid” shot than from “covid” itself. Other young people are ending up with myocarditis – a permanent condition, since heart tissue is non-regenerative. Why are the shots being pushed especially heavily on this cohort that statistically has a 0% chance of dying? “Risks outweigh the benefits”? Bullshit.


           
           6 
           
           0
          mark311 in reply to nordic_prince. | July 17, 2021 at 5:21 pm

          With respect the vaccine has been thoroughly tested. The experts that is to say people who actually know what they are talking about understand the risk profile of the vaccines hence why certain categories of people haven’t had the vaccine. We now have data from circa 9 months of trials and six months plus of mass vaccination world wide. That’s significant.

          Pathogenic priming would have been picked up during animal trials.

          With respect to fertility I hate to point it out but the spike protein in question is in Covid 19 and the common cold and neither of those have demonstrated an issue with regard to fertility.

          I’ve no idea where you got your 80% figure I can’t find any reference to that. All I can find is debunking of a claim stating an increase in miscarriages. That’s been debunked on that basis that it used rubbish maths.

          Given there are a grand total of 0 deaths with a causal link with a Covid vaccine I’d suggest your number are incorrect. With respect to child deaths.

          Myocarditis has been reported in circa 630 cases of vaccinated person under the age of 30 again no causal link has been identified. If there is a causal link then an alternative vaccine would be proposed since there are several choices.

          With respect to risk it’s not 0, and there is the issue of the virus mutating and becomes immune to current vaccines. That’s not a trivial issue.


     
     0 
     
     3
    james h in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 1:24 pm

    I think it’s a distinction without a difference. The government is directing a private company to take actions against the people that the government is not empowered to do itself. That makes Facebook a de facto arm of the government. For a while, I thought that Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai’s case against Massachusetts and Twitter was probably the strongest case like this, but now after Psaki’s statement, I think Trump’s case has a pretty good shot as well. I hope they both win.


       
       9 
       
       0
      mark311 in reply to james h. | July 17, 2021 at 2:41 pm

      You are asserting directed. Facebook would be well within there rights to say no. The reality is they are assisting in Facebook making decisions about conspiratorial and dangerous material


     
     0 
     
     7
    FOAF in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 1:42 pm

    Your comment makes no sense marky mark which is unsurprising since you are a drooling idiot.


     
     0 
     
     2
    henrybowman in reply to mark311. | July 17, 2021 at 5:50 pm

    “The government isn’t looking at Facebook posts it’s asking Facebook to take the posts down which blatantly spread falsehoods about vaccines.”

    Liar.

    It’s asking FB to take PARTICULAR posts and PARTICULAR posters down. Did you miss that part?

    NY Post: “White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday the Biden administration is identifying “problematic” posts for Facebook to censor because they contain “misinformation” about COVID-19.”

    “[Psaki] added: “We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s Office. We are flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”

    Under your own and Alinski’s rules, you should be immediately banned for posting provable misinformation here.


       
       1 
       
       0
      mark311 in reply to henrybowman. | July 18, 2021 at 11:22 am

      Yeah haven’t understood the argument very well have you. I’ve already acknowledged my factual error and that it doesn’t change the argument. Who care if the government are reading publically available posts. It’s right and proper that misinformation that has serious health consequences are taken down.


 
 0 
 
 5
2smartforlibs | July 17, 2021 at 11:31 am

I don’t know about the rest of you but I have already been on my DC delegation to move on the 230 protection Nazi tech has. When they become an arm of the DNC they are no longer platforms and the 230 protects need to be removed.


 
 0 
 
 2
gonzotx | July 17, 2021 at 11:37 am

My good friends father just died of China virus, he was fully vaccinated…


 
 0 
 
 4
nordic_prince | July 17, 2021 at 11:49 am

“Falsehoods about vaccines” AS DETERMINED BY THE POWERS THAT BE.

FIFY.

TPTB have already demonstrated their duplicitousness and willingness to engage in blatant propaganda to further their predetermined narrative.

Stacey Matthews: How is it “not spying” when the federal government goes digging for information posted by private citizens?

Next thing you know you’ll claim the White House can’t read the New York Times because it is a private entity, or the letters to the editor section of the Picayune Tribune. Reading what people publish publicly is hardly considered spying.


     
     0 
     
     4
    lichau in reply to Zachriel. | July 17, 2021 at 12:46 pm

    So, you are OK with the FBI reading your email?

      lichau: So, you are OK with the FBI reading your email?

      Email is private, and there is an expectation of privacy. A warrant is required. However, if you have your Facebook page set to public, then anyone can read it, including the government. Just like the New York Times.


         
         0 
         
         0
        CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | July 17, 2021 at 2:30 pm

        A warrant is required to read email. Presumably you would apply that requirement for the sender and all receivers? Ok, now your talking!

        Since you make so much of our expectations of privacy now do Tucker Carlson.

          CommoChief: Since you make so much of our expectations of privacy now do Tucker Carlson.

          There’s no evidence that the government hacked Carlson’s emails.


           
           0 
           
           1
          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 2:39 pm

          Uh huh. It’s a free country you and everyone else can believe what you want to. Though we might not be able to express those beliefs much longer based on the recent WH actions.


           
           0 
           
           3
          henrybowman in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 5:54 pm

          “There’s no evidence that the government hacked Carlson’s emails.”

          Wow. The gaslighting is strong in Ming the Merciless.

          henrybowman: Wow.

          The only evidence Carlson has provided is his own account. His own employer argued in court, successfully, that what he says should not be taken at face value. In an normal news organization, he would provide the information to his own reporting staff who would attempt to independently confirm the story. But they haven’t.


     
     0 
     
     0
    gibbie in reply to Zachriel. | July 17, 2021 at 1:37 pm

    I’m guessing you think that Facebook wouldn’t scan content which was not set to public.

      gibbie: I’m guessing you think that Facebook wouldn’t scan content which was not set to public.

      Oh, Facebook reads everything. That’s not the issue here, though. The White House was referring to publicly available information.

The Uniparty is reeling at the moment from so many mis-steps. They have lost traction and are desperate. If you missed it, Biden flew to Philadelphia on July 4 in an effort to halt the PA 2020 elections vote recount. These efforts are failing everywhere, in AZ, GA, NH etc.. where they are actually losing in court. So their response? A call for “harsh measures”. If they can’t cheat fair and square, they will again resort to violence.

You will never get these people recant or change their positions. They are operating on a global schedule with a global narrative and plan to stick to them. Even the squishy Republicans are feeling the heat.

Heck, even Biden is relenting by jumping on board with two of the biggest Trump foreign policy accomplishments: the Abraham Accords (where the Saudis have announced they will soon sign now that Jordan has relented on their Jerusalem protests) and forcing US companies to disengage from investing in China’s supply channels or face serious US penalties on their products and services.

Plus both infrastructure deals, the massive Democrat Green New Deal and McConnell’s smaller but still destructive version, are in trouble and will probably die. No hope of passage by reconciliation.

And now that DACA has been ruled unconstitutional, the Bernies are clamoring for Congress to pass a general amnesty law by reconciliation which is unconstitutional since amnesty is not budget-related.

Too many idiots around and they are now useless even to the Marxists. So let the escalation of violence begin to allow Darwinism do its work.

The Bernies and their Uniparty useful idiot operatives are very, very desperate and will soon be venting their anger.


     
     0 
     
     1
    gonzotx in reply to Pasadena Phil. | July 17, 2021 at 1:08 pm

    Hope your right about a lot of that post

    Pasadena Phil: … the Bernies are clamoring for Congress to pass a general amnesty law by reconciliation which is unconstitutional since amnesty is not budget-related.

    Minor nitpick. Reconciliation and the filibuster are per Senate rules, not the constitution. Senate rules can be changed at any time by a a majority of the Senate. Amnesty would not make it in a reconciliation bill under the current rules.


       
       0 
       
       1
      CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | July 17, 2021 at 2:19 pm

      Zach,

      Each body of our bicameral Congress is specifically authorized to set its rules and procedures. The two Senate rules you referenced were agreed to by the Senate, therefore they are in fact Constitutional.

      Under your theory of explicit powers much of what the Federal government has shoehorned in under the commerce clause would be unconstitutional.

      Not that that would be a bad outcome. I’m game how about you?

        CommoChief: The two Senate rules you referenced were agreed to by the Senate, therefore they are in fact Constitutional.

        Yes, the Senate rules are implemented per the constitution, but that doesn’t mean proposing an immigration provision is unconstitutional. That would be like saying speaking out of turn is unconstitutional.


           
           0 
           
           3
          CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | July 17, 2021 at 2:36 pm

          You should quit digging. That’s the first rule of holes.

          The Constitution specifically allows the Senate to set it’s rules. Therefore every Senate rule is Constitutional.

          If the Senate decided upon a rule requiring a left glove and only a right shoe to be worn while hopping on the left leg in order to be recognized to speak that is Constitutional.

          Stupid but Constitutional. If only stupidity was unconstitutional……. we would be much better off as a Nation.

          CommoChief: The Constitution specifically allows the Senate to set it’s rules.

          Oh gee whiz. Under the Constitution, the government can pass a law against jaywalking. But when you’re caught jaywalking, no one says you violated the Constitution. That’s just not how the term is used.


           
           0 
           
           3
          CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | July 17, 2021 at 3:16 pm

          Like I said, stop digging.


           
           4 
           
           0
          mark311 in reply to Zachriel. | July 17, 2021 at 4:51 pm

          @commochief

          I think this argument is revolving around meanings. The senate rules enacted constitutionally but aren’t afforded the same status as a constitutional rule. I believe that the distinction that Zachriel is talking about (but could be wrong)


 
 0 
 
 5
Taiwanese Lady | July 17, 2021 at 12:57 pm

Doing indirectly what fedgov is prohibited from doing (by 1A) directly.

But this makes facebook a “state actor” so this indirect action can be reached.


     
     0 
     
     4
    CommoChief in reply to Taiwanese Lady. | July 17, 2021 at 2:08 pm

    Which begs the question; why doesn’t the WH simply order this? The obvious answer is they understand that is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment.

    The bottom line here is that the WH wants to have it’s cake and eat it. If they believed they were on a firm legal footing to censor directly, because Rona or public health, then they would do that.

    Instead they are coercing private actors to do the censoring at the behest of the WH. This indirect censorship scheme demonstrates that the WH realizes they are not operating within constitutional bounds.

    As with many other WH policy preferences, they want credit with their base for ‘doing something’ but lack the legal or Constitutional authority to act directly.

    This Orwellian brew is the result.

      CommoChief: This indirect censorship scheme demonstrates that the WH realizes they are not operating within constitutional bounds.

      Your own comment argues against that conclusion. If they were to “order” Facebook to censor, that would be a violation of the First Amendment. But making a suggestion is not a violation of the First Amendment. They can click the “report post” button just like anyone else. Meanwhile, Facebook clapped back, so it’s clear they are acting independently.


         
         0 
         
         4
        CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | July 17, 2021 at 2:47 pm

        Ok sure. It’s not like the government has any regulatory recourse or financial recourse to bring to near should these companies decline to be coerced.

        If the WH believed they had the clear authority to order compliance they would. Since they know their direct action would fail they are attempting to skirt this by very clearly coercion of private companies.

        The administration isn’t having interns simply search for content and hitting a button. They stated they have been in direct communication with the companies seeking to enlist private actors to enforce their policy preferences for censorship.

        Lots of case law on this. All of says this sort of thing is unconstitutional.

          CommoChief: It’s not like the government has any regulatory recourse or financial recourse to bring to near should these companies decline to be coerced.

          That’s a better argument than before. Yes, the White House has an intrinsic coercive power. As a general rule, the norm is that the White House should only apply the pressure indirectly and broadly. But there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

          CommoChief: If the WH believed they had the clear authority to order compliance they would.

          Perhaps, but they didn’t.


           
           0 
           
           3
          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 3:21 pm

          Zach,

          If a company town is precluded from carrying out the will of the State or it’s political subdivisions because it was unconstitutional for a private actor to do the bidding of the government then it would surely prevent similar coercion by the WH.

          CommoChief: If a company town is precluded from carrying out the will of the State …

          Don’t know what that means. A town can be required to carry out the will of the state. It’s called law.


           
           0 
           
           1
          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | July 17, 2021 at 8:21 pm

          Zach,

          Marsh v Alabama seems applicable here.
          Marsh was prevented by a private entity; the company town, from passing out religious literature. SCOTUS said this is a no no. Govt can’t act through a private company to censor or restrict speech to avoid 1st amendment issues.

          Lots of case law about exercising 1st Amendment rights in quasi public places and public places.

          Psaki even referred to tech as ‘public platforms’ in attempting to blame FB and deflect responsibility from the WH. Was it a deliberate invocation or a slip made desperation?

          Either way not a good look legally.

          CommoChief: Marsh v Alabama seems applicable here.

          No more so than Legal Insurrection has to allow Nazis and knitting fanatics to clog up their comment section.

          Marsh concerned where people lived. People can easily click and go elsewhere. One could argue they have too much market power, but that needs to be addressed within anti-trust law (something Republicans have spent generations trying to undermine).


         
         0 
         
         1
        henrybowman in reply to Zachriel. | July 17, 2021 at 6:06 pm

        Because all those important moral and legal principles about “relationships of authority” and “power imbalances” that are so crucial when a professor or a psychiatrist ‘makes suggestions” to attractive students and patients never seem to apply when a cop or a fed “just wants to have a nice, friendly chat.”

          henrybowman: Because all those important moral and legal principles about “relationships of authority” and “power imbalances”

          Facebook is one of the most powerful entities on the planet. As noted in the comment to which you responded, Facebook asserted their independence. And yes, the government can exert pressure. Both the executive and legislative branches do it all the time. It’s part of the system. For instance, Republicans in Congress may very well want to grill Mark Zuckerberg about the current situation.

          The power imbalance can be important, especially when private individuals are involved. Or if the president threatens retribution against against, say, CNN. But it would depend on the situation.

          henrybowman: a cop or a fed “just wants to have a nice, friendly chat.”

          Turns out that cops can strike up conversations with people, who are then free to walk away. But most people like to talk. It’s part of human nature.

          Feds Charge Man Who Bragged to Mom as He Stormed Capitol in Gladiator Costume


 
 0 
 
 2
dging | July 17, 2021 at 4:09 pm

I’d say Doocy got it right.
spy (spī)
n. pl. spies (spīz)
1. One who secretly collects information concerning the enemies of a government or group.
2. One who secretly collects information for a business about one or more of its competitors.
3. One who secretly keeps watch on another or others.


     
     5 
     
     0
    Zachriel in reply to dging. | July 17, 2021 at 4:17 pm

    dging: I’d say Doocy got it right.

    As they aren’t acting in secret, it doesn’t meet the definition you provided.


       
       0 
       
       0
      healthguyfsu in reply to Zachriel. | July 18, 2021 at 2:11 am

      At one point it was in secret before it was practically bragged about in public, when spying is revealed is the spy no longer a spy?

        healthguyfsu: At one point it was in secret before it was practically bragged about in public, when spying is revealed is the spy no longer a spy?

        It’s no longer spying, per the definition provided. In any case, it’s hardly spying to go on Facebook and read public posts. That would be like saying it’s spying to read the New York Times.


 
 0 
 
 0
Vladtheimp | July 17, 2021 at 7:56 pm

I suggest a simple test to determine if the Big Tech Monopolies are even-handed and science based about shutting down “misinformation.”

Have they ever deleted information from “Minister” Louis Farrakhan about the origins of “White Devils” and his travels to the great Spaceship ?

If not, they are violating the Equal Protection Clause and need to be held accountable.

    Vladtheimp: If not, they are violating the Equal Protection Clause and need to be held accountable.

    The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Facebook. If someone wants to create a forum for the discussion of needlepoint, they don’t have to allow posts on cross stitch, or the implications of the Schrödinger equation.


 
 0 
 
 0
Bill Halcott | July 18, 2021 at 8:13 am

Another example of Fake News providing cover for this administration.


 
 0 
 
 1
SeniorD | July 18, 2021 at 10:38 am

Folks, let’s be real for a moment. The NSA sucks in virtually ALL electronic communications from telephone to FB chats and everything in between. There is no doubt in my mind the data scientists at Ft. Meade already have machine learning algorithms to identify trends in those communications. It doesn’t matter if the searches are legal or not – they’re being done and have been for decades.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend