Facebook Gave the CDC a Secret Censorship Portal

Facebook not only conducted censorship on behalf of the Biden white house using a liberal definition of “misinformation” which as I mentioned in a previous post included true content they deemed ‘sensationalist, alarmist or shocking’ they also set up a portal for the CDC to submit censorship requests that could be hidden from public oversight (i.e. not subject to FOIA request) due to the censorship requests being made via proprietary software. The official onboarding document for the portal reveals that content targeted for censorship could include any criticism of lockdown or mask mandate policy as well as any post critical of EUA approved modRNA transfections. This included claims that contradicted the official narrative that SARS-COV-2 is only spread through water droplets, a narrative that has since been debunked by research showing airborne transmission as the primary route, and claims against the usefulness of social distancing which experts have since admitted was completely arbitrary. They also censored posts about the COVID vaxx not preventing infection or transmission, which is now demonstrably true, and creating immune tolerance to the virus leading to a higher risk of infection. If you’ve followed the scientific research I have relayed here on Quora you’d be aware that most of the things they were censoring as misinformation in 2021, including claims about natural immunity, have been corroborated since. While Meta claims that they made these decisions themselves it should be remembered that the Biden admin pressure to censor COVID19 related posts that did not comport with the official narrative wasn’t merely harsh criticism but the carrot and stick of negotiating favorable trade deals with the EU that allows social media conglomerates like Meta to transfer EU user data to U.S. servers and the looming threat of possibly losing section 230 liability protections. In mid 2021 the Biden admin told the media they were reviewing section 230 protections afforded to social media conglomerates and questioning whether such companies should be sued for posts they claim are misinformation. Biden campaigned on removing section 230 protections. When the government tells social media companies to censor certain content they are not making suggestions; they are making veiled threats backed by the legal control they exert over those companies that can make or break them. The fact that these ‘switch-boarding’ operations are workarounds to the first amendment is not debatable when that reality is acknowledged.