Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Report: Facebook Admits To Suppressing “Often-True Content” At WH Request

Report: Facebook Admits To Suppressing “Often-True Content” At WH Request

“As you know, in addition to removing vaccine misinformation, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable information.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zCDvOsdL9Q

One of the notable revelations from the Twitter Files thus far released is the confirmation of what many have long suspected: government and Big Tech were working in tandem not to silence falsehoods but to silence facts that didn’t support the preferred and, as we now know, often false “narrative.”

We are also learning that Facebook, too, engaged in the suppression of what it terms “often-true content.”

The Daily Signal reports:

Facebook told an official at the Biden White House that the Big Tech company not only suppressed misinformation but took action against the “virality” of “often-true content” regarding the COVID-19 vaccines.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey released the documents earlier this week. Bailey obtained them through a court case, Missouri v. Biden, alleging that some of President Joe Biden’s top officials “colluded with Big Tech social media companies to violate Americans’ right to free speech under the First Amendment.”

. . . . In an email to the White House dated March 21, 2021, a Facebook staff member discussed “levers for tackling vaccine hesitancy content” with Andrew Slavitt, then a senior adviser on Biden’s COVID-19 response team, and Rob Flaherty, White House director of digital strategy.

“You also asked us about our levers for reducing virality of vaccine hesitancy content,” wrote the Facebook staffer, whose identity was redacted. “As you know, in addition to removing vaccine misinformation, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable information. This is often-true content, which we allow at the post level because it is important for people to be able to discuss both their personal experiences and concerns about the vaccine, but it can be framed as sensation, alarmist, or shocking.”

“We’ll remove these Groups, Pages, and Accounts when they are disproportionately promoting this sensationalized content,” the Facebook staffer added. He or she then promised, “More on this front as we proceed to implement.”

In this email to the White House, the Facebook representative admitted to preventing exposure of content that doesn’t violate Facebook’s policies—content that isn’t “actionable.” The staffer also suggested that the White House had asked Facebook to take these measures.

In their push to silence any questions, facts, or personal anecdotes about the covid vaccines (and the associated lockdowns, masking requirements, etc.), the government and Big Tech arguably created more, not less, vaccine hesitancy and general mistrust of government.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


 
 0 
 
 6
gonzotx | January 15, 2023 at 7:38 pm

When you think of all the forces that came together to destroy President Trump, Freedom, our Republic

And how many out of fear, went with the whole enchilada. Destroyed jobs, families, relationships

In central
Texas I see so many people wearing masks all I can do is show my head.


     
     0 
     
     3
    Dathurtz in reply to gonzotx. | January 15, 2023 at 7:48 pm

    Yep. Covid was an excellent opportunity to see which “authorities” were just shills for the power structure. Also, which normal people just can’t seem to think.


     
     2 
     
     5
    guyjones in reply to gonzotx. | January 15, 2023 at 9:48 pm

    I’ve noticed here in Washington, D.C. that many black folks seem enamored of their Wuhan Virus mask-talismans. I just passed an old black lady wearing one on the street, in the frigid, crisp night air. It’s total insanity. I can’t help but think that many of these people feel that the mask is an indispensable stage prop in their contrived performance of perennial, self-perceived victimhood.


       
       0 
       
       1
      WindyHill in reply to guyjones. | January 16, 2023 at 9:44 am

      Or, perhaps a face covering helped the elderly person to breathe in the “frigid, crisp night air”.


         
         0 
         
         1
        henrybowman in reply to WindyHill. | January 16, 2023 at 5:37 pm

        For about ten seconds, until your own exhaled moisture craps up the inner service with chilled water and/or actual ice. Then you just want it gone.

        I spent a brief period one night walking around Saskatoon at -40°. Took my balaclava off within the first three minutes, it was disgusting. Then my beard literally froze stiff from my own exhaust.


       
       0 
       
       2
      SuddenlyHappyToBeHere in reply to guyjones. | January 16, 2023 at 10:30 am

      In DC, a full 12% fewer of the “black folks” are vaccinated as against the vaccinated percent of the “white folks”. In DC, mind you. Perhaps it is due to a well and long established fear that many “black folks” have about American medicine. You know from the medical community injecting many of their ancestors with deadly diseases, you know, to see how it affected them.


         
         0 
         
         1
        henrybowman in reply to SuddenlyHappyToBeHere. | January 16, 2023 at 5:39 pm

        And then not injecting them with the proven cure even after it had been invented and the primary goal of the study was already moot. They kept going until the subjects died of a totally curable disease. That’s the part that always grabs me.

Past time for actual liberals to dump progressives, the haters of American values, who want to install a totalitarian utopia that will be hell on earth.

it’s not whether they did it or will continue do it, it’s what you’ll do about it.

Nothing?

K- then expect exact same to continue.


 
 0 
 
 5
nordic prince | January 16, 2023 at 12:21 am

I get thrown in FB jail frequently for posting “covid”/vaxx “misinformation.” It’s not always easy to get around the censors.

It kills me how the word of some minimum-wage boiler room “fact checker” always seems to be deemed more credible than actual experts like research scientists who have studied these things for 40 years.


 
 0 
 
 3
herm2416 | January 16, 2023 at 1:41 am

““You also asked us about our levers for reducing virality of vaccine hesitancy content,” wrote the Facebook staffer, whose identity was redacted.”
Why was this name redacted but not the names of the WH contacts? Clearly, the person is not innocent.


     
     3 
     
     1
    SuddenlyHappyToBeHere in reply to herm2416. | January 16, 2023 at 10:36 am

    Actually, that person IS innocent. The case is against the US Government. FB is not prohibited from banning or limiting folks on posts. So this FB staffer is innocent of claims being made in the litigation. The issue is what the government is doing to push FB to do something the government can’t do itself.

    The FB staffer has name redaction because he/she is not personally relevant to the litigation. Also because hard headed and stubborn fools such as you might harass that person if identified.

      Defendant: “no, Judge Jackson, I was just following orders.”

      Those foolish, hardheaded cretins just don’t get it!

      THANK GOD FOR LAWYERS!


       
       0 
       
       1
      CommoChief in reply to SuddenlyHappyToBeHere. | January 16, 2023 at 6:50 pm

      Do you mean to suggest that individuals who willingly collaborate with the totalitarians in govt to unlawfully interfere with the liberty of citizens should be exempted from criticism? Why shouldn’t collaborators be identified, exposed and held to account?

      The govt can’t as a general matter directly or indirectly via outsourcing to third parties engage in acts that undermine the constitutional rights of citizens. Certainly not in this instance. No unconstitutional act can be lawful so everyone involved in this was acting unlawfully in a conspiracy to violate individual rights protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions.


 
 0 
 
 0
herm2416 | January 16, 2023 at 1:41 am

Maybe it was Zuckerberg?


 
 0 
 
 2
mailman | January 16, 2023 at 2:51 am

I had a few bans on FB for arguing against the Chinese flu shot.

Also got a ban for calling St Greta of Catastrophilia a retard 😂

And banned from twitter for incitement because of course a random no follower Twitter account is more dangerous to Democracy than the Democrat account that created the incitement in the first place 🤬🙄😂


     
     0 
     
     0
    CaptTee in reply to mailman. | January 16, 2023 at 1:03 pm

    Get banned? Just change your nom de plume.

    Simply create several in anticipation of getting banned.


     
     0 
     
     1
    rwingjr in reply to mailman. | January 16, 2023 at 4:48 pm

    Lol, I got banned for saying to someone I would shoot them. I’m a photographer and it’s happened more than once. The last time I was placed in jail, it was for posting the results of an actual study about suicides. They claimed I was glorifying it. It was an actual study. SMH

The coordinated actions on the part of the government and FB to censor, constrain, and manage to their satisfaction the discussion and dialog of COVID related subject matter joins the growing list of similar actions between it/them, the government and its agencies, and other media streams on other topics and subjects is the tip of the iceberg. See the Twitter file releases, school board actions, voter/voting and election irregularities, abortion, immigration, environment, climate change, crime, baby formula, transportation, energy supplies, Jan 6, and a seemingly endless list of FBI misdeeds in a wide variety of subjects and events for examples.

How much more of this needs to be exposed before something is done? Think about how much more remains hidden, both participants and subject matter, Even if ALL of it was disclosed by congressional hearings or Elon Musk-Twitter file type events, what would be done? What could be done? How would it be done? Who would be held accountable? What would be the consequences for the involved parties? What remedies are available? How are they accessed? What has happened so far is neither reassuring nor comforting.

Asking for Ashli Babbit’s family and James O’Keefe.

No one could be surprised by this after what we know now and suspected for years this happened


 
 0 
 
 3
FrankJNatoli | January 16, 2023 at 7:42 am

Let’s be clear. Facebook was not “pressured”. Facebook merely came to realize that the White House does a better job of finding violations of the Democratic narrative than Facebook.


 
 0 
 
 1
Cleetus | January 16, 2023 at 9:35 am

All of this censorship that helped promote a vaccine that did not prevent transmission, had questionable effectiveness, and had a great many very serious side effects that have hurt and killed many. That is why hate speech is not saying something that will potentially hurt someone’s feelings, rather it’s censorship and lies that really do hurt and kill people.

“… we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable information.”

What does this mean? What is “actionable information” in this context? I seem to be the only one who doesn’t understand it.


     
     0 
     
     2
    Dathurtz in reply to coyote. | January 16, 2023 at 11:32 am

    The posts were, in fact, correct. Therefore, there was no justifiable action to be made (ban, suspension, delete post, etc.). However, they reduced the visibility of that post so that, when shared, others didn’t see it pop up on their screen automatically, but had to specifically look for it. That makes a post much less likely to go “viral” and reach a lot of eyes.


       
       0 
       
       1
      CommoChief in reply to Dathurtz. | January 16, 2023 at 1:03 pm

      Exactly, the posts were factually accurate but highly inconvenient b/c they authoritatively dissented from the approved heterodox viewpoints of the public health bureaucracy and pharma.

      Shedding more light on the willingness of these totalitarians is important. The ‘cog in the machine’ or done for the ‘greater good’ arguments are BS. These little fascists eagerly suppressed information and opinions in order to squelch any public debate over the clear failures and mismanagement of Covid policies.


     
     0 
     
     0
    henrybowman in reply to coyote. | January 16, 2023 at 5:43 pm

    “Actionable information” simply means content that clearly violates the terms of service rules. If you’re not clearly violating some rule, then they have to get inventive on why they are banning you.


 
 0 
 
 0
CaptTee | January 16, 2023 at 1:04 pm

I have been praying that all the corruption in the DC Swamp would be exposed.

If you can’t find the law this violates I am with you we need to create one.


 
 0 
 
 1
BierceAmbrose | January 16, 2023 at 4:12 pm

Did The Screaming D’s drive their infospace minions into editorial content-wrangling, making them authors not platforms, thus outside section 230 immunities?

Sure looks like they were advocating, vs. providing a neutral platform.

The jab-cookers got legislated immunity (I crack me up.) Their propagandists and treatment-safety fraudsters wrangling mere information did not.

remember- some one concocted the entire asian hate crime theme and got that propogated all across MSM and social media.

What exactly was the motivation other than to suck dumb middle aged white women into yet another trope.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.