One overlooked aspect of the critical period in July 2021 is the fact that changes to Section 230 were not an idle threat, as some would have you believe. Legislation was actually introduced that would have had profound affects on social media companies if passed. 🧵 Following the President's infamous comments on July 16th, Facebook executives immediately expressed frustration over these statements and what was described as the White House "exerting policy pressure." Nick Clegg noted that they needed to "reset the working relationship."

The published rule spans 1561 pages, of which only 55 actually make changes or additions to existing regulations. Below is a thread of some brief initial impressions from the actual text of the rule. 🧵

https://twitter.com/JenniferSey/status/1781309887164637204

This is not a change, but for background, it should be noted that many of these regulations pertain to *all* schools, including preschools and private elementary schools.

In their brief, the AMA and AAP repeatedly assert the government has a "compelling interest" in combating misinformation. The use of this term is not a coincidence, and it reveals how far they would let the government go in censoring information with which they disagree.’’

https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1742546780569358824

"Compelling interest" is a legal term of art specific to the analysis of whether a law violates strict scrutiny, which is itself triggered when government action restricts a fundamental right -- such as free speech under the First Amendment.

Former CDC director Walensky just testified that the vaccines "initially" stopped transmission and infection. "The quote....where I said they can't carry the virus [and] can't transmit it to others, that was true for the alpha variant at the time I said it."

Lost in the discussion of whether the vaccines were originally intended to prevent transmission is the fact that they were mandated by many governments on the very basis that they would do so. A number of federal regulations include such a claim. This thread includes citations to these and other federal regulations. Incredibly, there are people who still claim, "no one ever said it would stop the spread." But proof to the contrary is literally preserved for all time in the Federal Register.

https://twitter.com/techjudge/status/1478073889624317959?s=20&t=atAGE258FmKSNps57v-Vaw

As many have already noted, public officials made numerous past statements contradicting the current narrative that vaccines were never meant to stop infection but rather to reduce severity. /1

boriquagato.substack.com/p/yes-the-vacc… But beyond that, assertions about reductions in infection and transmission were the very basis upon which many mandates/rules rest. The Federal Register is filled will references to the vaccines protecting people from both becoming infected and transmitting to others. /2

AAP's declaration calls for a number of vague, long-term goals that mostly amount to asking for increased funding. Instead, a statement like the following would be infinitely more effective in actually addressing the mental health issues to which recommendations have contributed:

https://twitter.com/AmerAcadPeds/status/1450447354415525901

#1 - We were wrong. There are many reason why, but it doesn't matter right now. We were wrong and we're sorry.

#2 - Your children have a very, very low risk from COVID. We were worried otherwise, but we were wrong.

Today, I spent 3 hours on the farm in the cab of a combine with a cousin I hadn't seen for a while. I tried to avoid COVID talk because I know he and his wife are very afraid. I was actually a little surprised he was comfortable sharing an enclosed space with me for so long. This a smart guy. Background in programming and IT, very good job. Not overly political, but certainly more informed that the majority of the public. And it was absolutely striking just how little he knew about the actual research surrounding COVID.