The key lies in what information is declared as misinformation and by which entities.
On Friday, news broke that the Biden administration, after re-examining the origin of Covid-19, stated that the virus is likely to come from a research laboratory as credible as the natural origin plot. This is yet another example of the theory becoming a possibility, which has been rejected before. The announcement represents a major shift in this statement since last year. Officials and the media are open to the possibility of artificial emergence of this virus.
What makes this all the more important is the recent comments made by Press Secretary Jen Psaki on the Biden administration’s efforts on vaccine information-related issues. Psaki caused quite a stir spoke The White House hopes to collaborate with Facebook and target specific social media accounts that they believe are posting dangerous posts about vaccines. They want Facebook to cancel platforms that spread accounts that claim to be misinformation, and they want to delete these accounts from other platforms.
This is a chilling step to see that our leadership is pushing for real censorship of individuals, but the government’s own announcement on the same day made the situation worse. The reason: what the government said on Friday is the direct opposite of what it said on the same topic last year. Last year, when members of Congress and President Trump indicated that the virus might be released, health officials and most of the media strongly opposed it. The Wuhan laboratory’s leak theory was called “misinformation” at the time.
If a new standard had been established last year, namely a silent account promulgated by a higher voice to provide inaccurate information, then this topic-now declared to be reasonable-could become a reason for the target to be denied free expression. This means that they could have closed accounts that spread false information, and the false information eventually became accurate. Facts have proved that this is not the only example in the past year, which exposes this danger.
This week, Johns Hopkins University released a report on the alarming increase in the number of deaths due to overdose in 2020. This is a serious problem. Someone mentioned it last year because of concerns about the consequences of the extended blockade and subsequent unemployment regarding drug use. As the Washington Post example shows, this is another issue that is considered misinformation.
This week, Johns Hopkins University expressed disappointment at the dramatic increase in drug overdose during the pandemic.
Also this week, many people questioned how they and reporters were surprised. This was expressed last year, but the media threw it aside because it came from the president.https://t.co/2SLSQ14X6q— Brad Slager — More trouble than pressure. Biden (@MartiniShark) July 16, 2021
This shows an emerging pattern from 2020 to today, in which many projects originating from President Trump were completely rejected and declared as “misinformation”, only to be found credible and/or relevant. The tear gas incident in Lafayette Park is not another example. Many pandemic-related projects from hydroxychloroquine to the possible vaccine development by the end of the year are considered dangerous examples of false information. When the story of the Russian bounty spread, The Washington Post announces that Trump is lying When he described the story as a hoax. This story unravels faster than a sweater knitted by a one-armed methadone addict, and it is now history.
Then there was Hunter Biden’s laptop fiasco. The news media not only questioned the authenticity of this story, some people even refused to investigate it, claiming that it was provided by Russian false information agents.This story has been proven to be true. It is now known. The claim that Russia is involved is truly misinformation, but we have exactly seen this new push by the government-New York Post saw Its social media accounts suppressed their true and accurate stories.
This is exactly what the government’s new initiative to silence sources may lead to. In a comment on Friday, Jen Psaki declared, “We are flagging questionable posts that spread false information for Facebook.” The key word here is “problematic”, which is very different from “inaccurate”. This prompts them because they intend to track posts that interfere with their agenda and may undermine their rotation and sales skills on certain issues.
As we have seen in the past year, accuracy is not an issue-it is about maintaining the narrative and advancing their policies without interrupting the facts. In the past year, I have also seen that the media is very willing to follow their instructions. Please note that the government is not angry with these comments. In fact, many media agree that they should participate in these practices.
Wow. Amazing statement. The relationship between the White House and Facebook is so tense now.I heard from a source that after asking FB for data on vaccine misinformation for several months, WH was very frustrated. Although they publicly stated that they wanted to cooperate with WH, they did not share https://t.co/Pp7frsOwDP
-Cecilia Kang (@ceciliakang) July 16, 2021
