A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Hi Sarah, Please see the answers to your questions below: 1. Were the twitter posts on the 10/3/14 discussion on brain health linked below posted directly on NIH's Twitter account main page? Or was there a separate "chat" where these were posted? Plaintiffs want to know if anyone that went to the NIH's twitter account during that time would have seen those posts. You cannot post to someone's page on Twitter in the same way you can on Facebook. On Twitter, you can either reply to someone's tweet (aka tweet thread) or tweet under an established hashtag. The hashtag is a way to filter and organize tweets across Twitter by creating a feed with only those tweets using the same hashtag. It's a way to create a conversation on the platform. The hashtag for the chat was established by the NIH so that all chat participants could see the conversation around brain health. PETA posted both to NIH tweets and used the hashtag in this scenario. Participants would be looking at the tweets appearing on the hashtag (i.e. the conversation) and would have seen PETA's posts, and those following the tweet thread would have also seen PETA's posts. This means there would be no way to follow the information on the Twitter chat without being disrupted by the posts and being forced to work around them to get the relevant health information. /OD) [E] /OD) [E] OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) Lankford, >; Polimeni, Lankford, limeni, Lydia 2. Are you aware of complaints we've received against other types of posts, unrelated to animal testing? E.g., posts concerning Dr. Fauci, or posts concerning vaccine misinformation? I know I've asked this before, but Plaintiffs specifically want to know if the complaints NIH receives are really focused on PETA, or if NIH received complaints about inflammatory posts on a variety of subjects. I think Plaintiffs want to make the argument that NIH is targeted animal rights posts over other inflammatory posts when they are equally inappropriate. Since Plaintiffs want this answer as part of our fact stipulation negotiations, I think we have to provide it. Yes - we've received complaints about other inappropriate and/or off topic content that is not related to animal testing. Please see the screenshots and links to posts below. https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159317371801830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159342469336830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/239873164850792/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/251454613692647/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255266059978169/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255956623242446/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/nih.gov/posts/255820046589437 https://www.instagram.com/p/CT2N82Jlcui/?utm_medium=copy_link Let us know if you any additional questions. Thanks! Anna
-
Hi Sarah, Please see the answers to your questions below: 1. Were the twitter posts on the 10/3/14 discussion on brain health linked below posted directly on NIH's Twitter account main page? Or was there a separate "chat" where these were posted? Plaintiffs want to know if anyone that went to the NIH's twitter account during that time would have seen those posts. /OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, /OD) [E] You cannot post to someone's page on Twitter in the same way you can on Facebook. On Twitter, you can either reply to someone's tweet (aka tweet thread) or tweet under an established hashtag. The hashtag is a way to filter and organize tweets across Twitter by creating a feed with only those tweets using the same hashtag. It's a way to create a conversation on the platform. The hashtag for the chat was established by the NIH so that all chat participants could see the conversation around brain health. PETA posted both to NIH tweets and used the hashtag in this scenario. Participants would be looking at the tweets appearing on the hashtag (i.e. the conversation) and would have seen PETA's posts, and those following the tweet thread would have also seen PETA's posts. This means there would be no way to follow the information on the Twitter chat without being disrupted by the posts and being forced to work around them to get the relevant health information. 2. Are you aware of complaints we've received against other types of posts, unrelated to animal testing? E.g., posts concerning Dr. Fauci, or posts concerning vaccine misinformation? I know I've asked this before, but Plaintiffs specifically want to know if the complaints NIH receives are really focused on PETA, or if NIH received complaints about inflammatory posts on a variety of subjects. I think Plaintiffs want to make the argument that NIH is targeted animal rights posts over other inflammatory posts when they are equally inappropriate. Since Plaintiffs want this answer as part of our fact stipulation negotiations, I think we have to provide it. Yes - we've received complaints about other inappropriate and/or off topic content that is not related to animal testing. Please see the screenshots and links to posts below. https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159317371801830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/43331696829/posts/10159342469336830/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/239873164850792/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/251454613692647/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255266059978169/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/100064843296393/posts/255956623242446/?d=n https://www.facebook.com/nih.gov/posts/255820046589437 https://www.instagram.com/p/CT2N82Jlcui/?utm_medium=copy_link Let us know if you any additional questions. Thanks! Anna
-
Hi Anna, Thanks so much! We are getting close to finalizing the fact stipulation. Hopefully by Friday but possibly next week if necessary. I have one needed clarification about Twitter, and would like your team to review some language about manual moderation to see if you have any feedback or edits. We initially did not want to include any detail about manual moderation, but this seems to be a sticking point for Plaintiffs. We think they want to focus on non-animal rights comments that violate NIH's comment guidelines and argue that NIH is only targeting animal rights comments, and will use the presence of these other extreme comments as their argument. The DOJ and I are starting to be ok with including a statement about manual moderation because we can easily explain why these other off topic comments exist- we can say that we didn't catch them because of lack of resources, and that we may hide those comments and look into adopting new filters to catch similar comments for in the future if the court's decision permits. If you could get back to me on the below by Wednesday COB if possible that would be great, or Thursday morning I think would be ok too. Thank you! 1. Re: PETA on the NIH Twitter chat--can users see that whole Twitter chat? Plaintiffs claimed they may want context for the complaints, but asserted they couldn't necessarily view the whole chat. Is that true? /OD) [E] Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia ) [E] a 2. Please let me know your feedback and if you have any edits on the following paragraph concerning NIH's manual moderation: Once Plaintiffs' complaint was filed, NIH paused its efforts to manually hide comments consistent with its comment moderation guidelines. Prior to this litigation, NIH did engage in manual comment hiding--however, due to resource constraints, these efforts were limited--although it principally relied upon its keyword filters to ensure compliance with its comment moderation guidelines. If NIH had the resources to manually moderate its social media accounts on a more consistent basis, it would have done so. NIH intends to resume manual comment moderation following a resolution of the parties summary judgment motions, if consistent with the Court's order resolving those motions. 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, Thanks so much! We are getting close to finalizing the fact stipulation. Hopefully by Friday but possibly next week if necessary. I have one needed clarification about Twitter, and would like your team to review some language about manual moderation to see if you have any feedback or edits. /OD) [ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia )E) We initially did not want to include any detail about manual moderation, but this seems to be a sticking point for Plaintiffs. We think they want to focus on non-animal rights comments that violate NIH's comment guidelines and argue that NIH is only targeting animal rights comments, and will use the presence of these other extreme comments as their argument. The DOJ and I are starting to be ok with including a statement about manual moderation because we can easily explain why these other off topic comments exist- we can say that we didn't catch them because of lack of resources, and that we may hide those comments and look into adopting new filters to catch similar comments for in the future if the court's decision permits. If you could get back to me on the below by Wednesday COB if possible that would be great, or Thursday morning I think would be ok too. Thank you! 1. Re: PETA on the NIH Twitter chat--can users see that whole Twitter chat? Plaintiffs claimed they may want context for the complaints, but asserted they couldn't necessarily view the whole chat. Is that true? 2. Please let me know your feedback and if you have any edits on the following paragraph concerning NIH's manual moderation: Once Plaintiffs' complaint was filed, NIH paused its efforts to manually hide comments consistent with its comment moderation guidelines. Prior to this litigation, NIH did engage in manual comment hiding--however, due to resource constraints, these efforts were limited--although it principally relied upon its keyword filters to ensure compliance with its comment moderation guidelines. If NIH had the resources to manually moderate its social media accounts on a more consistent basis, it would have done so. NIH intends to resume manual comment moderation following a resolution of the parties summary judgment motions, if consistent with the Court's order resolving those motions. 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.
-
2022-01-25 11:53
Anna Kern
Hi Sarah, Just confirming receipt and that we are working on these responses. Thanks! Anna
-
Hi Sarah, Just confirming receipt and that we are working on these responses. Thanks! Anna
-
Hi Amanda and Renate, Below is a draft response (#1) back to Sarah regarding a question about the Twitter chat. I thought that the paragraph they drafted about the manual moderation of comments looked good. Please let us know if you have additional thoughts by COB tomorrow. Thank you! f(OoD)[ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia )) as 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 Amanda and Renate, Below is a draft response (#1) back to Sarah regarding a question about the Twitter chat. I thought that the paragraph they drafted about the manual moderation of comments looked good. Please let us know if you have additional thoughts by COB tomorrow. Thank you! 1. Re: PETA on the NIH Twitter chat--can users see that whole Twitter chat? Plaintiffs claimed they may want context for the complaints, but asserted they couldn't necessarily view the whole chat. Is that true? . Yes, for the most part. Tweets from users whose accounts are private would not be seen. However, all of the complaints and PETA's tweets direct at NIH are public. You can see the chat tweets from users who have a public Twitter profile. Here's the link to the chat with those publicly available tweets: Full Twitter chat thread from 10/3/14 on brain health that was disrupted. 2. Please let me know your feedback and if you have any edits on the following paragraph concerning NIH's manual moderation: /OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, /OD) [E] f(OD)[ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia )E) Once Plaintiffs' complaint was filed, NIH paused its efforts to manually hide comments consistent with its comment moderation guidelines. Prior to this litigation, NIH did engage in manual comment hiding-- however, due to resource constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, these efforts were limited--although it principally relied upon its keyword filters to ensure compliance with its comment moderation guidelines. If NIH had the resources to manually moderate its social media accounts on a more consistent basis, it would have done so. NIH intends to resume manual comment moderation following a resolution of the parties summary judgment motions, if consistent with the Court's order resolving those motions.
-
Hi Amanda and Renate, Below is a draft response (#1) back to Sarah regarding a question about the Twitter chat. I thought that the paragraph they drafted about the manual moderation of comments looked good. Please let us know if you have additional thoughts by COB tomorrow. Thank you! /OD) [E] Lankford, >; Polimeni, /OD) [E] (o) >) nn Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia )) 1. Re: PETA on the NIH Twitter chat--can users see that whole Twitter chat? Plaintiffs claimed they may want context for the complaints, but asserted they couldn't necessarily view the whole chat. Is that true? . Yes, for the most part. Tweets from users with a public profile can be seen by anyone following the chat. Tweets from users whose accounts are private would not be seen by everyone; only followers of a user with a private account would be able to view their tweets. However, PETA's tweets directed at NIH and the tweets complaining about PETA's disruptions are public. Here's the link to the chat with those publicly available tweets: Full Twitter chat thread from 10/3/14 on brain health that was disrupted. 2. Please let me know your feedback and if you have any edits on the following paragraph concerning NIH's manual moderation: Once Plaintiffs' complaint was filed, NIH paused its efforts to manually hide comments consistent with its comment moderation guidelines. Prior to this litigation, NIH did engage in manual comment hiding-- however, due to resource constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, these efforts were limited--although it principally relied upon its keyword filters to ensure compliance with its comment moderation guidelines. If NIH had the resources to manually moderate its social media accounts on a more consistent basis, it would have done so. NIH intends to resume manual comment moderation following a resolution of the parties summary judgment motions, if consistent with the Court's order resolving those motions.