Twitter Files: The Covid Censorship Directive By Brian Simpson
Twitter, under the guidance of Elon Musk, has now released its nineteenth “Twitter Files,” which go to showing the dark and dirty deeds done by Twitter back in the dark pre-Musk days. The latest news, not really surprising, is that a Stanford University initiative instructed Twitter to clamp down on Covid vax “misinformation.” Included under this heading were posts that mentioned the experimental nature of the mRNA vaxxes, and even to suppress stories of true vaccine injuries, as such stories could promote vaccine hesitancy. If at the end of this, there is a day of judgment, the universities, and academics need to be made accountable as much as the health authorities and totalitarian governments.
“The nineteenth “Twitter Files” installment has revealed that a Stanford University initiative routinely told social media companies to suppress posts containing “[t]rue content which might promote vaccine hesitancy.”
According to the latest installment of files posted to Twitter on Friday by journalist Matt Taibbi, The Virality Project, a Stanford University initiative launched in May 2020 that receives federal funding by the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation, instructed Big Tech social media platforms such as Twitter and TikTok to take action against admittedly “true” posts regarding the experimental COVID-19 vaccines as part of its fight against “disinformation.”
In the internal communications posted by Taibbi, the Stanford-led project flagged “True content which might promote vaccine hesitancy,” including “stories of true vaccine side effects,” as content that needed to be combatted through censorship.
In another communication between the project and high-ranking Twitter employees Yoel Roth and Brian Clarke, the Stanford researchers explained that some of these “true posts which could fuel hesitancy” included “individual countries banning certain vaccines” and “celebrity deaths after vaccine.”
The Vitality Project also determined that posts that were critical of “vaccine passports” were “misinformation,” justifying the classification by saying that those who oppose discrimination based on vaccine status “have driven a larger anti-vaccination narrative about the loss of rights and freedoms.”
Perhaps the most pointed examples of factual information the group wanted suppressed under the guise of misinformation were the “true stories of people experiencing blood clots after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine,” as according to them, “Increased doubts in one manufacturer’s vaccine may lead to hesitancy about vaccination overall.”
The project also took issue with any expression of curiosity in adverse reactions, alleging that “just ‘asking questions'” is “a tactic commonly used by spreaders of misinformation to deflect culpability.”
Comments