This is a different topic.
It's not. The topic is government collusion with social media companies to censor speech. This specific lawsuit does not address the Hunter Biden Laptop, but it follows pretty much the same script. The Hunter Biden Laptop story was classified as "misinformation" and censored. Twitter removed posts talking about it and banned accounts that dared post anything about it. And then suddenly, just a few weeks ago, CBS News acted like this was a breaking story, where in reality it had simply been suppressed and censored. It's important to understand why that happened and who made those decisions.
Likewise, remember when it was taboo to talk about the theory that COVID may have escaped from a lab-leak? Just thinking that would get you suspended from social media. But now, it's a plausible theory. Time and again we see examples of yesterday's "misinformation" becoming today's facts. That's why this is important.
The other is this one, Government tried to get social media to align with Dr Fauci. For what reason?????????
This Fauci conspiracy is nonsense of course.
Not really. There are documented emails of Dr. Fauci corresponding about the Great Barrington Declaration with Francis Collins, stating that there needed to be a swift, public takedown of the GBD. These doctors were impugned as "fringe epidemiologists". Nothing could have been further from the truth. Did they collude with social media companies for this "takedown" and to what extent? These are important questions.
By the way, most of the world is now employing the principles in the GBD (focused protection) as they have come to the realization that sustained social disruptions have consequences. Perhaps if there had been an open scientific discussion instead of a "takedown" of a different set of ideas we could have avoided some of those consequences. But unfortunately, there are too many people who think Dr. Fauci hung the moon and should be able to dictate what can and cannot be said. Foolishness gone to seed.
Dr Fauci isn't a politician. He isn't on the Democrats or Republicans side.
Dr Fauci was the lead science adviser in both Administrations as the foremost expert in contagious diseases and was on the official Covid Taskforce.
You misspelled lead bureaucrat. And if you read his deposition, he has a terrible memory. He "can't recall" anything it would seem. Someone should test that guy for amnesia.
It makes complete sense that social media organisation who are looking to remove dangerous misinformation, would look to what Fauci is saying as the "official position" regarding the scientific position of Covid, I would assume they also look to WHO and CDC as authorities also.
Doctors who disagreed with Dr. Fauci and the official narrative were censored and banned from social media. Contrary to what you've been told, Dr. Fauci does not represent science, and disagreeing with his positions is not "misinformation". There were plenty of dissenting voices from accredited doctors. But they could not speak out, since the narrative had coalesced around what Dr. Fauci deemed to be the correct information. In hindsight, it's laughable.
Personally I think it shows that these social media organisations were acting with high integrity , that they were looking to the official authorities in science with regards to determining what is truth vs what is dangerous misinformation.
Yikes. It's disturbing that you're willing to grant a single person with the authority to determine what is and is not "misinformation". That's not how science works. That's how authoritarian regimes are born, by regulating what can and cannot be said. An open discussion of various ideas and opinions was warranted and is HOW. SCIENCE. WORKS, not the creation of a fake "consensus" that never existed.
It would be poor integrity if instead they were looking to Trump, Pence, Biden or Harris for the official information.
But that's exactly how COVID boosters came to be authorized. Check out this timeline that shows the introduction of COVID boosters (which, by the way, resulted in the public resignation of the top two vaccine regulators at the FDA) was driven by politics, not science. Just look at the timing. Biden tells people, long before any studies were done, that they could get boosters by a certain date. And then just like magic, the FDA falls in line (after the top two vaccine regulators resigned in protest) and authorizes them just in time for when Biden said they'd be available. Nifty coincidence, I suppose. Probably nothing on official government letterhead though, so I'm sure it's just a "conspiracy".
2 Senior FDA officials have resigned & are writing op eds
vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com
I have absolutely no problems with a social media company basing scientific facts and public safety decisions off the official authorities.
You presuppose that the "official authorities" are only looking out for your best interest and that "scientific facts" are indisputable. That is, of course, nonsense.
I find it very weird that some people see this as nefarious. Very weird.
I find it very weird that some people implicitly trust everything their government says and does unless they can find evidence of wrongdoing on official government letterhead. Very weird indeed.
Ultimately the social media companies can look to whomever they want, it's their decision. But it is great that they look to high ranking and well respected and highly qualified scientists.
You're deluding yourself if you think there was or is a consensus. Did you know that the WHO
NEVER recommended masking toddlers, but the CDC did (based on absolutely no data). Yet if you dared to state that masking toddlers in daycare was foolish theater unsupported by science that would likely result in language learning loss, you risked being banned for posting "misinformation". I'm not really sure people really understand what that word means.
Let's see where Dr. Fauci goes from here. Consulting for Pfizer? Moderna? The revolving door is real. Just ask Scott Gottlieb, once commissioner of the FDA, now enjoying a cushy job on the Pfizer board. Regulatory capture is a very real concern. Regulating what can and can not be stated is a very real concern.
