A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Hi Anna and team, Thank you so much! This is extremely helpful. I will work with DOJ on incorporating this information into the facts. Please see my responses below in red. After all your work, I already have a request for follow-up. The draft stipulation of facts we received from the Plaintiffs included a number of examples of specific comments that were hidden from NIH's Facebook and Instagram. They attribute these hidden comments to NIH's Facebook and Instagram filter lists. Interestingly, we have discovered that the HHS Facebook comments plaintiffs mention were likely filtered through Facebook's own spam filter, as HHS does not filter "monkey" from its Facebook comments (as a reminder, Plaintiffs only claimed HHS' Facebook blocked the word monkey and only gave a few examples). Due to this, DOJ is currently discussing removing HHS from the lawsuit with Plaintiffs, so then the only defendant would be NIH. Therefore, we'd like to confirm that these hidden comments were actually based on NIH's own filters and not some other mechanism. I have attached a document of all of the examples Plaintiffs included. Could you please investigate the following: /OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, ie, Amanda 1. Check each example on Facebook and Instagram, to the extent possible, to confirm that NIH's filters did indeed hide these comments. I reviewed all of the examples myself against the Facebook/Instagram filter lists to ensure at least one word in each example is on the filter lists, and inserted a comment where there are discrepancies. 2. Where I inserted a comment where there are discrepancies, please respond to the comments to let me know whether you think the filters did capture these terms, whether they were manually hidden by NIH or whether you think Facebook or Instagram's own filters may have been in effect. As far as timing, the DOJ wants to submit our edits to the proposed stipulation of facts on Wednesday or Thursday at the latest to allow time for some back and forth with the plaintiffs before the deadline. Please let me know if you can get back to me on this by COB tomorrow. I apologize for the continued short turn around time. The stipulation is likely our only opportunity to get the facts in the record. I'd also like to schedule a quick call with the key decision maker and the person who has the most comprehensive knowledge of the facts to review the facts presented and ensure there are no other key facts that might be useful to include. I can provide a copy of the draft fact stipulation in advance, or review a summary of the facts with you during the call. 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 Anna and team, Thank you so much! This is extremely helpful. I will work with DOJ on incorporating this information into the facts. Please see my responses below in red. After all your work, I already have a request for follow-up. The draft stipulation of facts we received from the Plaintiffs included a number of examples of specific comments that were hidden from NIH's Facebook and Instagram. They attribute these hidden comments to NIH's Facebook and Instagram filter lists. Interestingly, we have discovered that the HHS Facebook comments plaintiffs mention were likely filtered through Facebook's own spam filter, as HHS does not filter "monkey" from its Facebook comments (as a reminder, Plaintiffs only claimed HHS' Facebook blocked the word monkey and only gave a few examples). Due to this, DOJ is currently discussing removing HHS from the lawsuit with Plaintiffs, so then the only defendant would be NIH. Therefore, we'd like to confirm that these hidden comments were actually based on NIH's own filters and not some other mechanism. OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, ie, Amanda I have attached a document of all of the examples Plaintiffs included. Could you please investigate the following: 1. Check each example on Facebook and Instagram, to the extent possible, to confirm that NIH's filters did indeed hide these comments. I reviewed all of the examples myself against the Facebook/Instagram filter lists to ensure at least one word in each example is on the filter lists, and inserted a comment where there are discrepancies. 2. Where I inserted a comment where there are discrepancies, please respond to the comments to let me know whether you think the filters did capture these terms, whether they were manually hidden by NIH or whether you think Facebook or Instagram's own filters may have been in effect. As far as timing, the DOJ wants to submit our edits to the proposed stipulation of facts on Wednesday or Thursday at the latest to allow time for some back and forth with the plaintiffs before the deadline. Please let me know if you can get back to me on this by COB tomorrow. I apologize for the continued short turn around time. The stipulation is likely our only opportunity to get the facts in the record. I'd also like to schedule a quick call with the key decision maker and the person who has the most comprehensive knowledge of the facts to review the facts presented and ensure there are no other key facts that might be useful to include. I can provide a copy of the draft fact stipulation in advance, or review a summary of the facts with you during the call. 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 Anna and team, Thank you so much! This is extremely helpful. I will work with DOJ on incorporating this information into the facts. Please see my responses below in red. After all your work, I already have a request for follow-up. The draft stipulation of facts we received from the Plaintiffs included a number of examples of specific comments that were hidden from NIH's Facebook and Instagram. They attribute these hidden comments to NIH's Facebook and Instagram filter lists. Interestingly, we have discovered that the HHS Facebook comments plaintiffs mention were likely filtered through Facebook's own spam filter, as HHS does not filter "monkey" from its Facebook comments (as a reminder, Plaintiffs only claimed HHS' Facebook blocked the word monkey and only gave a few examples). Due to this, DOJ is currently discussing removing HHS from the lawsuit with Plaintiffs, so then the only defendant would be NIH. Therefore, we'd like to confirm that these hidden comments were actually based on NIH's own filters and not some other mechanism. I have attached a document of all of the examples Plaintiffs included. Could you please investigate the following: 1. Check each example on Facebook and Instagram, to the extent possible, to confirm that NIH's filters did indeed hide these comments. I reviewed all of the examples myself against the Facebook/Instagram filter lists to ensure at least one word in each example is on the filter lists, and inserted a comment where there are discrepancies. 2. Where I inserted a comment where there are discrepancies, please respond to the comments to let me know whether you think the filters did capture these terms, whether they were manually hidden by NIH or whether you think Facebook or Instagram's own filters may have been in effect. As far as timing, the DOJ wants to submit our edits to the proposed stipulation of facts on Wednesday or Thursday at the latest to allow time for some back and forth with the plaintiffs before the deadline. Please let me know if you can get back to me on this by COB tomorrow. I apologize for the continued short turn around time. The stipulation is likely our only opportunity to get the facts in the record. I'd also like to schedule a quick call with the key decision maker and the person who has the most comprehensive knowledge of the facts to review the facts presented and ensure there are no other key facts that might be useful to include. I can provide a copy of the draft fact stipulation in advance, or review a summary of the facts with you during the call. Thank you, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch (direct) @nih.gov OD) [E] nate (NIH/OD) [E] Lankford, ie, Amanda ob) [E] <t . > /OD) [€] Lankford, 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. /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.
-
2021-12-06 21:52
Sarah J. Imhoff
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.
-
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.