Twitter File release #11 hits on the long-anticipated information surrounding how the platform was instructed by various government agencies to remove content adverse to the expressed opinion of CDC, HHS, and DHS officials. [Release #11 Here]
The first installment of the Twitter COVID-19 files comes from David Zweig, a writer for New York Mag, New York Times, The Atlantic and other publications. Because the U.S. Government COVID-19 information control operation was so extensive, there will likely be several Twitter File releases related to the SARS-CoV2 pandemic issue. However, in this first release Zweig starts to build the story of how the CDC and HHS set the foundation for the echo-chamber that ended with Twitter executives running amok.
[Twitter File #11 – Release Here]
As Zweig begins his review he noted, “The United States government pressured Twitter and other social media platforms to elevate certain content and suppress other content about Covid-19.” While the Trump administration was worried about information that would create panic, like runs on grocery stores, the Biden administration was more focused on content control to push the overall narrative about fearing COVID and the vaccination demand.
“When the Biden admin took over, one of their first meeting requests with Twitter executives was on Covid. The focus was on “anti-vaxxer accounts.” Especially Alex Berenson,” Zweig writes as he then begins to give examples of various medical professionals that were targeted by the White House and the platform.
The outcome of the HHS and CDC push circled around politics, which, when combined with the ideological perspectives of the Twitter executives, inevitably ended up making COVID-19 a political issue on the platform. Critics of COVID-19 policy were blocked, censored, removed and restricted. Advocates of government policy were enhanced, amplified, promoted and enlarged.
The scale of the issue meant supportive algorithms based on key words needed to be created, and the scope of the information battle necessitated the hiring of contractors. As Zweig notes, “contractors in places like the Philippines, also moderated content. They were given decision trees to aid in the process, but tasking non experts to adjudicate tweets on complex topics like myocarditis and mask efficacy data was destined for a significant error rate.”
The Biden administration wanted to use fear as a weapon to control public opinion of COVID-19. The aligned ideological Twitter executives also wanted to assist using fear and fought to controversialize and target any voice who downplayed the fear of covid. One of those pragmatic voices was President Trump.
President Trump sent out this Tweet in 2020 which was not well received by former FBI General Counsel, now Twitter General Counsel, Jim Baker:
Apparently, the phrase “don’t be afraid of Covid” was triggering for those who wanted fear and panic to be the prevalent perspective on the virus.
Twitter General Counsel Jim Baker asked the head of Twitter’s censorship group, Yoel Roth, why wasn’t this statement worthy of Donald Trump being removed for violating the Twitter Covid policy?
As you can see, Jim Baker wanted to censor the optimistic approach of President Trump in order to amplify the fearful and looming message.
The motive of Jim Baker, while undefined by Mr. Zweig, is transparent in hindsight.
The platform officials and the various officials in media, were promoting the fear and worry narrative as part of an election strategy to facilitate mail-in ballots. COVID-19 was as much, perhaps even more of, an election manipulation tool as it was a virus.
In the rest of the outline Zweig focuses on the professionals who were targeted by the information control campaign. “Twitter made a decision, via the political leanings of senior staff, and govt pressure, that the public health authorities’ approach to the pandemic – prioritizing mitigation over other concerns – was “The Science” . . .
Information that challenged that view, such as showing harms of vaccines, or that could be perceived as downplaying the risks of Covid, especially to children, was subject to moderation, and even suppression. No matter whether such views were correct or adopted abroad.”
The government, media and social media campaign to control information about COVID-19 was never about science or even the virus itself. The COVID-19 information control operation was always about control over the public. That campaign became political because the Biden campaign/administration, Democrats, media and the voices in control over social media weaponized it around their political beliefs.
The COVID-19 narrative becomes a tool to achieve a variety of objectives: debate controls; the deployed ‘excuse‘ for a very visible lack of voter enthusiasm for the puppet (Biden); the use of fraudulent ‘mail-in ballots’; the keeping of socially distant physical auditors, etc. Without COVID as a tool the manufactured process is more difficult. The ‘never let a crisis go to waste‘ strategy includes the creation of a crisis.
The COVID-19 narrative held four primary benefits. Without COVID weaponized we would not see:
- (1) Mail-in ballots. The origination material of the 2020 fraud.
- (2) Breaking down of alliance-minded gathering and assemblies. COVID blocked group gatherings to discuss what was around us and stopped us from recognizing the scale of our assembly. COVID also took down faith-based leadership and church assembly when it was needed most.
- (3) Spending packages that were really blue state bailouts justified under the auspices of COVID relief.
- (4) Government providing the crisis solution (and all the ramifications therein).
.
Lastly, we know in hindsight; the 2016 presidential transition team carried a then unknown motive. Who was it that recommended: Dan Coats (ODNI), Michael Atkinson (ICIG), James Mattis (DoD), Dana Boente (DOJ-NSD then FBI counsel). Who was the one steering these placements from inside the transition team?
Who was in charge of the transition team and also in charge of the Trump COVID-19 task force?
