A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Hi team, I also reviewed the document you sent over and have a few follow-up responses/questions: 1. For the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals, NIH chose option #1- . Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work. You asked "Can we add filters in the future as long as they're neutral?" Answer- As things currently stand with our litigation strategy, NIH can add neutral filters now and in the future. If the court issues an injunction based on a ruling that NIH's social media pages are designated public forums, it is possible NIH would not be able to include neutral filters to prevent discussion about a broad topic, such as animal testing generally or COVID vaccinations generally. /OD) [E] _ Lankford, ne, Amanda > Question- What date did NIH remove the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? We have not done that yet, but can be done immediately. 2. To follow-up on the inquiry about pro-animal testing comments, the DOJ would like to make the argument that the NIH doesn't have a policy of targeting anti-animal testing posts. Posts defending animal testing, as much as posts critical of animal testing, would not be permitted if they are off-topic, inflammatory, etc. I know you said you don't have any examples of hiding pro-animal testing comments, but again, if we can include examples of where the filters caught some of those posts, whether separate posts or posts in response to an anti-animal testing post, that would help. If there are any issues where there might have been more debate that you could browse through to double check, such as maybe the beagle uproar, that would be helpful. We'll continue to look, but this is not a scenario that happens because people aren't really posting pro-animal testing. However we do have examples of other instances where we have hidden comments that were off topic. For example we posted about NIH's ending structural racism effort, and there were comments about Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ivermectin that were hidden for being off topic. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
Hi team, I also reviewed the document you sent over and have a few follow-up responses/questions: 1. For the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals, NIH chose option #1- . Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work. You asked "Can we add filters in the future as long as they're neutral?" Answer- As things currently stand with our litigation strategy, NIH can add neutral filters now and in the future. If the court issues an injunction based on a ruling that NIH's social media /OD) a a Lankford, ne, Amanda > pages are designated public forums, it is possible NIH would not be able to include neutral filters to prevent discussion about a broad topic, such as animal testing generally or COVID vaccinations generally. Question- What date did NIH remove the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? We have not done that yet, but can be done immediately. 2. To follow-up on the inquiry about pro-animal testing comments, the DOJ would like to make the argument that the NIH doesn't have a policy of targeting anti-animal testing posts. Posts defending animal testing, as much as posts critical of animal testing, would not be permitted if they are off-topic, inflammatory, etc. I know you said you don't have any examples of hiding pro-animal testing comments, but again, if we can include examples of where the filters caught some of those posts, whether separate posts or posts in response to an anti-animal testing post, that would help. If there are any issues where there might have been more debate that you could browse through to double check, such as maybe the beagle uproar, that would be helpful. We'll continue to look, but this is not a scenario that happens because people aren't really posting pro-animal testing. However we do have examples of other instances where we have hidden comments that were off topic. For example we posted about NIH's ending structural racism effort, and there were comments about Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ivermectin that were hidden for being off topic. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
Hi team, I also reviewed the document you sent over and have a few follow-up responses/questions: 1. For the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals, NIH chose option #1- . Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work. You asked "Can we add filters in the future as long as they're neutral?" Answer- As things currently stand with our litigation strategy, NIH can add neutral filters now and in the future. If the court issues an injunction based on a ruling that NIH's social media pages are designated public forums, it is possible NIH would not be able to include neutral filters to prevent discussion about a broad topic, such as animal testing generally or COVID vaccinations generally. Question- What date did NIH remove the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? We have not done that yet, but can be done immediately. 2. To follow-up on the inquiry about pro-animal testing comments, the DOJ would like to make the argument that the NIH doesn't have a policy of targeting anti-animal testing posts. Posts defending animal testing, as much as posts critical of animal testing, would not be permitted if they are off-topic, inflammatory, etc. I know you said you don't have any examples of hiding pro-animal testing comments, but again, if we can include examples of where the filters caught some of those posts, whether separate posts or posts in response to an anti-animal testing post, that would help. If there are any issues where there might have been more debate that you could browse through to double check, such as maybe the beagle uproar, that would be helpful. We'll continue to look, but this is not a scenario that happens because people aren't really posting pro-animal testing. However we do have examples of other instances where we have hidden comments that were off topic. For example we posted about NIH's ending structural racism effort, and there were comments about Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ivermectin that were hidden for being off topic. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
Hi team, I also reviewed the document you sent over and have a few follow-up responses/questions: 1. For the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals, NIH chose option #1- . Remove the above filters and use a different neutral keyword hashtag to achieve the same effect to help stop the barrage of comments from PETA, such as #testing or #animals, if this would work. You asked "Can we add filters in the future as long as they're neutral?" Answer- As things currently stand with our litigation strategy, NIH can add neutral filters now and in the future. If the court issues an injunction based on a ruling that NIH's social media pages are designated public forums, it is possible NIH would not be able to include neutral filters to prevent discussion about a broad topic, such as animal testing generally or COVID vaccinations generally. Question- What date did NIH remove the Instagram filters #stopanimaltesting, #stoptesting, and #stoptestingonanimals? We have not done that yet, but can be done immediately. 2. To follow-up on the inquiry about pro-animal testing comments, the DOJ would like to make the argument that the NIH doesn't have a policy of targeting anti-animal testing posts. Posts defending animal testing, as much as posts critical of animal testing, would not be permitted if they are off-topic, inflammatory, etc. I know you said you don't have any examples of hiding pro-animal testing comments, but again, if we can include examples of where the filters caught some of those posts, whether separate posts or posts in response to an anti-animal testing post, that would help. If there are any issues where there might have been more debate that you could browse through to double check, such as maybe the beagle uproar, that would be helpful. We'll continue to look, but this is not a scenario that happens because people aren't really posting pro-animal testing. However we do have examples of other instances where we have hidden comments that were off topic. For example we posted about NIH's ending structural racism effort, and there were comments about Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ivermectin that were hidden for being off topic. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such /OD) a Lankford, ne, Amanda > information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
2021-12-08 18:32
Sarah J. Imhoff
Hi, I want to clarify my answer below to #1. I just heard from DOJ that they'd prefer holding on adding any new keywords to the filter list for right now. It would be easier to just litigate with the universe we have, rather than change the facts at a later stage. However, our fact stipulation will expressly reserve the right for NIH to add content neutral keyword filters to capture posts that violate the comment guidelines in the future. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this point. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
Hi, I want to clarify my answer below to #1. I just heard from DOJ that they'd prefer holding on adding any new keywords to the filter list for right now. It would be easier to just litigate with the universe we have, rather than change the facts at a later stage. However, our fact stipulation will expressly reserve the right for NIH to add content neutral keyword filters to capture posts that violate the comment guidelines in the future. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this point. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
Hi, I want to clarify my answer below to #1. I just heard from DOJ that they'd prefer holding on adding any new keywords to the filter list for right now. It would be easier to just litigate with the universe we have, rather than change the facts at a later stage. However, our fact stipulation will expressly reserve the right for NIH to add content neutral keyword filters to capture posts that violate the comment guidelines in the future. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this point. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately. 00) > 7PM -_ i Lankford, ne, Amanda Lankford, ne, Amanda
-
Hi, I want to clarify my answer below to #1. I just heard from DOJ that they'd prefer holding on adding any new keywords to the filter list for right now. It would be easier to just litigate with the universe we have, rather than change the facts at a later stage. However, our fact stipulation will expressly reserve the right for NIH to add content neutral keyword filters to capture posts that violate the comment guidelines in the future. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this point. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel /OD) a a Lankford, ne, Amanda > Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov This e-mail message is intended for the exclusive use of the recipient(s) named above. It may contain information that is protected, privileged, or confidential, and it should not be disseminated, distributed, or copied to persons not authorized to receive such information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
-
Hi Sarah- So sorry for writing late. Crazy week for us! A call would be great, but we have another crazy day tomorrow and the best time that will work is 12:30-1pm. Will that work for you all as well? I'm attaching our responses to your comments in the stipulations document. I've included the answers to your questions below (highlighted). To answer your question about the key policy decision maker: that would be Renate. In terms of who has the most information to talk through the stipulation--that would be all of the OCPL people on this email. We each have different pieces of the information. My take away from the below explanation is that if we want to continue to moderate off topic comments on Facebook and Instagram, then we must decide to fight the lawsuit, and only if we win, then we could continue to do so. Is that accurate? Looking forward to the call. Thanks, Amanda /OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, ie, Amanda Ola: iia Lankford, ne, Amanda >