Journalist David Zweig revealed a new batch of Twitter files this week exposing widespread collusion with the government to control the COVID narrative. In “HOW TWITTER RIGGED THE COVID DEBATE – Zweig details government overreach to Big Tech to suppress viewpoints and data inconsistent with “the science.” “By censoring info that was true but inconvenient to U.S. govt. policy – By discrediting doctors and other experts who disagreed – By suppressing ordinary users, including some sharing the CDC’s *own data*.”
The report went on to outline how the Trump administration and the Biden Administration engaged Big Tech during the COVID pandemic and the contrast between the two couldn’t be brighter.
Trump’s team engaged Big Tech to prevent fear-based runs on grocery stores and panic buying. “At the onset of the pandemic, according to meeting notes, the Trump admin was especially concerned about panic buying. They came looking for “help from the tech companies to combat misinformation” about “runs on grocery stores.” But . . . there were runs on grocery stores.”
The Biden Administration, however, set their sights on suppressing the views of “anti-vaxxers” specifically writer Alex Berenson.
20. Exhibit A: Dr. Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School, tweeted views at odds with US public health authorities and the American left, the political affiliation of nearly the entire staff at Twitter. pic.twitter.com/K3kwQIdzHG
— David Zweig (@davidzweig) December 26, 2022
Kulldorff’s tweets were flagged and action was taken against his account.
21. Internal emails show an “intent to action” by a moderator, saying Kulldorff’s tweet violated the company’s Covid-19 misinformation policy and claimed he shared “false information.” pic.twitter.com/lq9QOP8h27
— David Zweig (@davidzweig) December 26, 2022
In the end, Twitter executives made the decision that any view that differed from the CDC was to be suppressed, according to Zweig, “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.”
