“That's the problem with being ahead of your time. By the time everyone catches up with you, you’re bored.”— Fran Lebowitz
In April of 2020, as the pandemic unfolded, I became curious about its origin as well as the mitigation measures being deployed and the various responses to them. During those early months, I posted numerous articles to my Facebook page, hoping to initiate a virtual discussion as nobody could meet in person. By the end of May, I realized that this was a “no no” and that publicly questioning what was occurring could have both social and professional repercussions. After Facebook censored one of my posts, I worried that I was in danger of a suspension of my account, which I needed to run the library’s Facebook page. So I hid my pandemic-related Facebook posts and went underground (aka Reddit) for the rest of the year.
With this Substack piece I am dusting off some of those early 2020 posts to see how well they have aged.
If evidence is found that Covid-19 is a biological weapon, some pundits such as Fox News host Lou Dobbs have called for the US to declare war on China.
Nonetheless, it is unclear what the legal ramifications would be if the virus was indeed leaked from a Chinese lab, but as a result of a research project that was outsourced and funded by the US government.
Also, if there was a government ban in 2014 on federal funding being used for GOF research, what are the federal compliance and ethical issues surrounding the fact that the NIH still gave federal funding instead of private funding to the Wuhan lab to continue the experiments?
The report found that, in addition to being airborne, a pathogen with the potential to cause a global pandemic disaster would likely have the following traits:
It would be contagious during the "incubation period," before people show any symptoms, or when people have only mild symptoms.
It would be a microbe that most people are not immune to, so there would be a large population of susceptible human hosts.
It wouldn't have an existing treatment or prevention method.
It would have a "low but significant" fatality rate.
Although the final trait may sound surprising, Adalja noted that a pathogen doesn't have to have a high fatality rate, or kill the majority of people infected, to cause majority societal disruptions. "It just has to make a lot of people sick," he told Live Science. (A pathogen with a high fatality rate could kill too many people too quickly, and therefore run out of "hosts" to spread further, the report noted.)
During the month of May, I posted a clip from Plandemic that was making the social media rounds with the caption, “You be the judge.” Facebook censored the clip the following day.
To this BBC article entitled Coronavirus: 'Plandemic' virus conspiracy video spreads across social media I appended, “Okay "crazy conspiracy theorist" here. But there are healing microbes in the ocean. And there is an investigation into whether the virus leaked from a lab. And there is some benefit to exposure to healthy bacteria, which is prevented by masks and gloves. So BBC has got to do a little better.”
I then created this standalone post:
“As a librarian I have been thinking about the pulling of the Plandemic video and would welcome discussion on this. Everyone take a deep breath. I imagine the book is going to be a bestseller and so will wind up in library collections.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue with the election and Facebook was that Russian bots were posting fake news. I haven't heard anyone yet claim that the video was funded by the Russians or a similar scenario.
According to the New York Times, the company, Elevate, which is out of Ojai and has a YouTube channel, had produced Pro-Bernie, Anti-Hillary videos. PolitiFact used the fact that it was affiliated with a "Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself" video to discredit the company. Salon used the fact that there is a video of the founder doing a "third eye meditation" to discredit it. Salon also discredited the film for claiming that there are "healing microbes in the ocean, the soil, and the sand." BBC discredited the film for the same.
Now by those last few measures, we would be censoring or banning Oprah, Dr. Oz, GOOP, and half of the yoga teachers in America. We would also be removing the overwhelming number of books in the collection promoting healthy gut bacteria.
Now I know some of you are thinking that would be a good thing. However, we do not censor those things.
The bigger claims in the video warrant investigation, as does her court case and the allegations against her, and that should be part of any rebuttal. The claim about masks should be responded to by scientists. It seems like that would be better than censoring the video, which I am sure has brought more interest in it.
Or do people feel it is just too much of a public health threat to have it out there? Because it was only a clip, I'm not sure what the overall message was going to end up being.
Thoughts.”
In regard to repurposed drugs, I posted, from Reuters, States work to limit prescriptions of potential coronavirus drugs. I was intrigued by this passage in the piece (but didn’t highlight it due to fear of being stamped a “Trump supporter”)— Pharmacists have already seen doctors prescribing the drugs for themselves or their families, according to Erin Fox, senior director of drug information at University of Utah Health, which has 12 retail pharmacies.
One of my final posts was the Sam Husseini video “Perspectives on the Pandemic” Episode 7.
Reviewing these posts I am struck by a couple of things. A few mainstream media outlets did some decent reporting on controversial aspects of the pandemic, at least early on, and yet it still felt like the public wasn’t allowed to discuss those subjects, and most well-known figures on the left, from Chris Hedges to Naomi Klein, were not examining them. At the same time, I can spot the origins of my growing distrust of mainstream media.
Now here we are, three years later, back to media discussions of the lab leak theory, after several years of conspiracy theorist allegations were lobbed against it. The Twitter files are now putting social media censorship in the spotlight. I imagine other aspects of the pandemic response, from school closures to medical treatments, will come under increased scrutiny.
All of this begs the question— in an emergency situation, does forbidding public discussion protect the public or allow more harm to occur?
They censored lots of every-day people. The "Twitter Files' have all the e-mails. The Virality Project was meant to counter any COVID-hesitancy. This would just mean other people wouldn't "see" what you posted if Stanford determined you were asking any questions at all in the public sphere.
I do not know why librarians are not more concerned about this.
I try to tell students that everyone pays taxes and we have to be cordial to all, but there is a disdain for those with whom they disagree. The library community has one side and if you have any opinion that differs you will be isolated.
I logged off ALA Connect for good after so many piled on some fellow last year and began moderating the site.
Right now in FL we are facing many challenges in universities and libraries. Much urging to contact legislators. Since legislators know that 95% of faculty donations are to one party, the faculty has little clout. Librarians kept their own counsel a long time but recently the criticism of the stupid awful people (actual quotes I've seen) is going to result in less support, I fear.
The Virality Project in 2021 worked with government to launch a pan-industry monitoring plan for Covid-related content. At least six major Internet platforms were “onboarded” to the JIRA ticketing system, daily sending millions of items for review. The Virality Project reviewed content on a mass scale for Twitter, Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Medium, TikTok, and Pinterest.
Thanks for the link. I tried to add info about Twitter Files #18-19 (The Virality Project) to the Wikipedia article on the "Twitter Files," but because it wasn't reported in the MSM it was deleted. It's a rule of Wikipedia that only citations from approved sources can be used to cite something. The Twitter Files are considered a primary source so can't be cited. Although the "Twitter Files", have been discussed at many places such as this Brownstone, nothing can be cited that is self-published and it thus appears that there is not broad discussion.
One of the people who edits under a pseudonym at Wikipedia came to my Talk space at Wikipedia and criticized a post I had made here at "Heterodoxy in the Stacks."
The "Talk" page section on the "Twitter Files" shows discussion about the Virality Project. In these comments there is what would be considered bullying--belittling me for trying to post information. I suppose they think I will give up.
See the "Talk" about the "Virality Project" at the Wikipedia article on the 'Twitter Files."
Here was what was said in response to my efforts; they always accuse you of being a Republican. (Am a lifelong reg. Democrat).
"Extensive? Mainly to the small number of people who are Muskies, Taibbitubbies, or who for some other reason take an undue interest in Republican right talking points and fabrications. This is way too low a bar for NPOV and Verification"
I have gotten to the point of just eye-rolling when I see those kinds of comments and passing over them, but in this case, it is having a negative effect on your Wikipedia posts, which is not good. I really wonder if the people making those comments are sincere or if they are paid trolls.
They can say some fairly mean and dismissive things. W. is supposed to be completely volunteer, but I feel often as if some editors are trying to drive out anything that doesn't meet their narrative--always having a rule that overturns efforts to document what they perceive as a Republican Talking point. I think the massive censorship during COVID should concern everyone regardless of political preference, but accepting censorship now seems to be something that is expected if you want to be a cool kid.
I have some of the same experiences on Reddit now, especially on the librarian sites! I feel like there is some busybody Tracy Flick-type from Election deleting any posts that are "off-narrative."
I don't use Wikipedia anymore for anything that is remotely controversial.
I did manage to help in the talk to get the Twitter Files page established. Initially it was going to be deleted. You are correct--W. is fine for many topics, but anything political will be worked over. There are a lot of Tracy-types!
I had some bad experiences online with a few librarians (none I knew personally) who shouted me down with "private companies can do whatever they want" when I brought up social media censorship around that time.
I watched the Congressional Hearings where Taiibbi and Shellenburger spoke about Twitter Files, then sent out a message about this and then was told (by librarians) that any Republican led committee was going to spread misinformation.
I had a visceral reaction against the Liebowitz quote that almost prevented me from reading this post. It struck me as smug and arrogant - self-superior. And fundamentally mistaken philosophically in that it implies some kind of linear historiography. Marx liked to think that way, although he wasn't alone. It's woefully ignorant of history though.
I thought it might come across as smug, but I think it reflects a type of frustration that people who were trying to sound the alarm early on (more public figures than myself) feel now that a lot of this is finally coming to the light.
I was like you also. I pretty quickly had to learn to rein it in with most people about what would in an earlier decade just been considered rational discussion. When I was a young man - back in the seventies - I lived in coastal Northern California for several years. There were quite a number of communes in the area - mostly "Jesus Freak" communes. I lived in an old foreman's cabin on what was once a large cattle ranch - it was along the Van Duzen River - pretty remote. But cheap. At the base of the dirt road up to my place was one of these communes. I used to buy eggs from them. They were something else. About twenty-five young adults, more female than male, but the males were clearly in charge (called themselves the "elders"). Many of the women had tiny children on arm or following them around. If you've never been around people like that, it's hard to describe. I shared a meal with them once - they were trying to convert me, basically. I submitted to it because I was trying to check up on a runaway girl I'd picked up hitchhiking who was staying there after being tossed out by her older boyfriend she'd runaway from home with. She appeared to me to be so lost and vulnerable. On that drive when I picked her up I was trying to talk her into calling her parents, but I gather they didn't have a good relationship. The commune men wouldn't let me near her when I checked up on her. It was hopeless. Anyway - long story - but I'm telling it because these people today who one can no longer talk to rationally remind me almost exactly of those commune people.
The Virality Project out of Stanford University was the topic of the Twitter Files released March 17.
ALL discussion of COVID was censored that went against the CDC.
The Great Covid-19 Lie Machine
Stanford, the Virality Project, and the Censorship of “True Stories”
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1636729166631432195
I'm probably on some kind of list.
They censored lots of every-day people. The "Twitter Files' have all the e-mails. The Virality Project was meant to counter any COVID-hesitancy. This would just mean other people wouldn't "see" what you posted if Stanford determined you were asking any questions at all in the public sphere.
I do not know why librarians are not more concerned about this.
I gave up talking to the library community about it, until I found Heterodox Libraries.
I try to tell students that everyone pays taxes and we have to be cordial to all, but there is a disdain for those with whom they disagree. The library community has one side and if you have any opinion that differs you will be isolated.
I logged off ALA Connect for good after so many piled on some fellow last year and began moderating the site.
Right now in FL we are facing many challenges in universities and libraries. Much urging to contact legislators. Since legislators know that 95% of faculty donations are to one party, the faculty has little clout. Librarians kept their own counsel a long time but recently the criticism of the stupid awful people (actual quotes I've seen) is going to result in less support, I fear.
Even now I was nervous about posting this, like, are we ALLOWED to talk about all this now? Ridiculous really.
Sure you are, but self-censorship has crept in for all of us. I tweeted about a Twitter File and some people asked me if I'd become a Republican.
The Virality Project in 2021 worked with government to launch a pan-industry monitoring plan for Covid-related content. At least six major Internet platforms were “onboarded” to the JIRA ticketing system, daily sending millions of items for review. The Virality Project reviewed content on a mass scale for Twitter, Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Medium, TikTok, and Pinterest.
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1636729182712483842
Another piece on that: https://brownstone.org/articles/censorship-masquerades-and-disinformation-control/
Thanks for the link. I tried to add info about Twitter Files #18-19 (The Virality Project) to the Wikipedia article on the "Twitter Files," but because it wasn't reported in the MSM it was deleted. It's a rule of Wikipedia that only citations from approved sources can be used to cite something. The Twitter Files are considered a primary source so can't be cited. Although the "Twitter Files", have been discussed at many places such as this Brownstone, nothing can be cited that is self-published and it thus appears that there is not broad discussion.
One of the people who edits under a pseudonym at Wikipedia came to my Talk space at Wikipedia and criticized a post I had made here at "Heterodoxy in the Stacks."
The "Talk" page section on the "Twitter Files" shows discussion about the Virality Project. In these comments there is what would be considered bullying--belittling me for trying to post information. I suppose they think I will give up.
See the "Talk" about the "Virality Project" at the Wikipedia article on the 'Twitter Files."
Here was what was said in response to my efforts; they always accuse you of being a Republican. (Am a lifelong reg. Democrat).
"Extensive? Mainly to the small number of people who are Muskies, Taibbitubbies, or who for some other reason take an undue interest in Republican right talking points and fabrications. This is way too low a bar for NPOV and Verification"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twitter_Files
I have gotten to the point of just eye-rolling when I see those kinds of comments and passing over them, but in this case, it is having a negative effect on your Wikipedia posts, which is not good. I really wonder if the people making those comments are sincere or if they are paid trolls.
They can say some fairly mean and dismissive things. W. is supposed to be completely volunteer, but I feel often as if some editors are trying to drive out anything that doesn't meet their narrative--always having a rule that overturns efforts to document what they perceive as a Republican Talking point. I think the massive censorship during COVID should concern everyone regardless of political preference, but accepting censorship now seems to be something that is expected if you want to be a cool kid.
I have some of the same experiences on Reddit now, especially on the librarian sites! I feel like there is some busybody Tracy Flick-type from Election deleting any posts that are "off-narrative."
I don't use Wikipedia anymore for anything that is remotely controversial.
I did manage to help in the talk to get the Twitter Files page established. Initially it was going to be deleted. You are correct--W. is fine for many topics, but anything political will be worked over. There are a lot of Tracy-types!
I had some bad experiences online with a few librarians (none I knew personally) who shouted me down with "private companies can do whatever they want" when I brought up social media censorship around that time.
I watched the Congressional Hearings where Taiibbi and Shellenburger spoke about Twitter Files, then sent out a message about this and then was told (by librarians) that any Republican led committee was going to spread misinformation.
Argh.
That is another form of vaccine; it immunized against possibly hearing discussions involving truth.
I had a visceral reaction against the Liebowitz quote that almost prevented me from reading this post. It struck me as smug and arrogant - self-superior. And fundamentally mistaken philosophically in that it implies some kind of linear historiography. Marx liked to think that way, although he wasn't alone. It's woefully ignorant of history though.
I thought it might come across as smug, but I think it reflects a type of frustration that people who were trying to sound the alarm early on (more public figures than myself) feel now that a lot of this is finally coming to the light.
I was like you also. I pretty quickly had to learn to rein it in with most people about what would in an earlier decade just been considered rational discussion. When I was a young man - back in the seventies - I lived in coastal Northern California for several years. There were quite a number of communes in the area - mostly "Jesus Freak" communes. I lived in an old foreman's cabin on what was once a large cattle ranch - it was along the Van Duzen River - pretty remote. But cheap. At the base of the dirt road up to my place was one of these communes. I used to buy eggs from them. They were something else. About twenty-five young adults, more female than male, but the males were clearly in charge (called themselves the "elders"). Many of the women had tiny children on arm or following them around. If you've never been around people like that, it's hard to describe. I shared a meal with them once - they were trying to convert me, basically. I submitted to it because I was trying to check up on a runaway girl I'd picked up hitchhiking who was staying there after being tossed out by her older boyfriend she'd runaway from home with. She appeared to me to be so lost and vulnerable. On that drive when I picked her up I was trying to talk her into calling her parents, but I gather they didn't have a good relationship. The commune men wouldn't let me near her when I checked up on her. It was hopeless. Anyway - long story - but I'm telling it because these people today who one can no longer talk to rationally remind me almost exactly of those commune people.
Interesting comparison, thank you.