Government-funded Stanford researchers said they didn't demand censorship, but they did. They even created this handy little graphic in a grant proposal. It shows how their disinformation "Incidents are routed to platform partners... for... takedowns" @mtaibbi 
Last March, after @mtaibbi and I testifed before Congress, Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) said it “did not censor or ask social media platforms to remove any social media content regarding coronavirus vaccine side effects.”
That was a bald-faced lie.
That was a bald-faced lie.
https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1722988472640618854?s=20
@mtaibbi While we learned that SIO demanded censorship last month, today @mtaibbi discovered, thanks to his FOIA request, that SIO had put its creepy little censorship flow chart in its own grant proposal.
In the name of "fighting disinformation," SIO spread disinformation about itself.
In the name of "fighting disinformation," SIO spread disinformation about itself.
The following is from @galexybrane & @NAffects
These are some of the Virality Project’s most egregious, absurd, and anti-science censorship efforts:
—After Krispy Kreme announced it would give free donuts to people who got vaccinated, the Virality Project alerted platforms about “criticism against Krispy Kreme’s vaccine for donut promo” and labeled such criticism as “general anti-vaccination.”
— The Virality Project flagged a PDF of consolidated data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national vaccine safety reporting system co-managed by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration. (VAERS data is publicly available.) The Project noted that Google had removed the content after its report.
— The Project flagged an Israeli pre-print that found natural immunity to be as protective as vaccination. “Please note this Israeli narrative claiming that Covid-19 immunity is equivalent to vaccination immunity,” Virality Project wrote to Twitter and Facebook, including the link to a tweet from Congressman Thomas Massie.
— The Virality Project flagged a Lancet research article about the absolute risk reduction of Covid vaccines, calling it an “alleged authoritative source.” Facebook then labeled the article.
— In one highly troubling instance, the Project flagged someone’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, videos showing side effects, and PDFs detailing conspiracy theories,” the Virality Project wrote. “This was reported to us from one of our public health partners, who found that an individual commented on these links on their website.” The Project noted that Google removed the content.
— On multiple occasions, the Virality Project sent platforms reports about resistance to vaccine mandates and lockdowns, such as the “Worldwide Rally for Freedom” and a TikTok trend to “raise middle fingers to vaccine.” The Project called this content “organized outrage.”
— Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the Project did not “ask social media platforms to remove any social media content regarding coronavirus vaccine side effects,” the Virality Project repeatedly reported testimonials of vaccine injuries to Twitter and Facebook, including testimonials from healthcare workers. Accounts of vaccine injuries, the Project wrote to platforms, could “fuel vaccine hesitancy.”
— When Pfizer claimed that its vaccine for children age 12 to 15 was 100% effective, the Project reported that “anti-vaccine groups” were expressing concerns about mandates for children and “disbelief at the 100% efficacy number.”
— In June 2021, the Virality Project flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization (WHO) did not recommend vaccinating children. In its communication with platforms, the Project flagged a tweet by journalist David Zweig that contained this claim. (The WHO has since changed the advice on its website.)
— The Virality Project flagged jokes, including what it called the “Right-Wing & Anti-Vaxx Viral Trend” to say, "I Identify as Vaccinated."
— According to Stanford, the Virality Project’s work “centered on identification and analysis of social media commentary relating to the COVID-19 vaccine, including emerging rumors about the vaccine where the truth of the issue discussed could not yet be determined.”
Yet in its Jira system, the Virality Project expressed absolute certainty about the vaccine, called doubters “anti-vax,” and targeted individuals like Kulldorff who challenged CDC advice. The Project clearly aimed to control the vaccine narrative and prohibit questions about vaccine safety and efficacy.
These are some of the Virality Project’s most egregious, absurd, and anti-science censorship efforts:
—After Krispy Kreme announced it would give free donuts to people who got vaccinated, the Virality Project alerted platforms about “criticism against Krispy Kreme’s vaccine for donut promo” and labeled such criticism as “general anti-vaccination.”
— The Virality Project flagged a PDF of consolidated data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a national vaccine safety reporting system co-managed by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration. (VAERS data is publicly available.) The Project noted that Google had removed the content after its report.
— The Project flagged an Israeli pre-print that found natural immunity to be as protective as vaccination. “Please note this Israeli narrative claiming that Covid-19 immunity is equivalent to vaccination immunity,” Virality Project wrote to Twitter and Facebook, including the link to a tweet from Congressman Thomas Massie.
— The Virality Project flagged a Lancet research article about the absolute risk reduction of Covid vaccines, calling it an “alleged authoritative source.” Facebook then labeled the article.
— In one highly troubling instance, the Project flagged someone’s Google Drive. “See the following Google Drive links being used to compile testimonies about vaccine shedding, videos showing side effects, and PDFs detailing conspiracy theories,” the Virality Project wrote. “This was reported to us from one of our public health partners, who found that an individual commented on these links on their website.” The Project noted that Google removed the content.
— On multiple occasions, the Virality Project sent platforms reports about resistance to vaccine mandates and lockdowns, such as the “Worldwide Rally for Freedom” and a TikTok trend to “raise middle fingers to vaccine.” The Project called this content “organized outrage.”
— Contrary to Stanford’s claim that the Project did not “ask social media platforms to remove any social media content regarding coronavirus vaccine side effects,” the Virality Project repeatedly reported testimonials of vaccine injuries to Twitter and Facebook, including testimonials from healthcare workers. Accounts of vaccine injuries, the Project wrote to platforms, could “fuel vaccine hesitancy.”
— When Pfizer claimed that its vaccine for children age 12 to 15 was 100% effective, the Project reported that “anti-vaccine groups” were expressing concerns about mandates for children and “disbelief at the 100% efficacy number.”
— In June 2021, the Virality Project flagged accurate claims that the World Health Organization (WHO) did not recommend vaccinating children. In its communication with platforms, the Project flagged a tweet by journalist David Zweig that contained this claim. (The WHO has since changed the advice on its website.)
— The Virality Project flagged jokes, including what it called the “Right-Wing & Anti-Vaxx Viral Trend” to say, "I Identify as Vaccinated."
— According to Stanford, the Virality Project’s work “centered on identification and analysis of social media commentary relating to the COVID-19 vaccine, including emerging rumors about the vaccine where the truth of the issue discussed could not yet be determined.”
Yet in its Jira system, the Virality Project expressed absolute certainty about the vaccine, called doubters “anti-vax,” and targeted individuals like Kulldorff who challenged CDC advice. The Project clearly aimed to control the vaccine narrative and prohibit questions about vaccine safety and efficacy.
Be sure to read the excellent new exposé of @stanfordio by @mtaibbi
And watch this video by @lwoodhouse where I explain how Stanford researchers tricked the public into seeing a partisan mass censorship initiative as an apolitical cybersecurity effort.
https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1723493811119067611?s=20
The graphic shows a committee of experts deciding what people should be allowed to say and read online.
The First Amendment and 100 years of Supreme Court rulings prohibit that role for government.
Behind this graph is an authoritarian mind.
The First Amendment and 100 years of Supreme Court rulings prohibit that role for government.
Behind this graph is an authoritarian mind.
https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1734414033078583375?s=20
To recap. The “anti-disinformation researchers”
— proposed to censor;
— successfully got platforms to engage in mass censorship;
— lied, a.k.a., “spread disinformation,” about its censorship.
*Chef’s kiss*
— proposed to censor;
— successfully got platforms to engage in mass censorship;
— lied, a.k.a., “spread disinformation,” about its censorship.
*Chef’s kiss*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
