A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
Thanks, Anna. So sorry but another question came in. Plaintiffs are claiming comments that showed up for them are no longer showing up and are asking if we deleted them. In the attached first document, the post shows 20 comments and Brittny Hopwood's comments containing words show. This is what she saw in July and she took screenshots at that time. In the attached second document, the post shows 7 comments, with only one comment viewable and none of Brittny Hopwood's comments. I looked on my personal account myself and confirmed I only see one viewable comment and none from Brittny Hopwood. Plaintiffs' question is: Ms. Hopwood has confirmed that she did not delete these comments. Can you ask the NIH if they removed the comments at some point after they were initially posted? I assume the answer is no, NIH did not delete these comments, but I wanted to double check with you. Thanks, Sarah J. Imhoff, JD, MHSA Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Public Health Division, NIH Branch /OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) /OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia (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.
-
OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )) Lankford, limeni, Lydia Lankford, limeni, Lydia Thanks, Anna. So sorry but another question came in. Plaintiffs are claiming comments that showed up for them are no longer showing up and are asking if we deleted them. In the attached first document, the post shows 20 comments and Brittny Hopwood's comments containing words show. This is what she saw in July and she took screenshots at that time. In the attached second document, the post shows 7 comments, with only one comment viewable and none of Brittny Hopwood's comments. I looked on my personal account myself and confirmed I only see one viewable comment and none from Brittny Hopwood. Plaintiffs' question is: Ms. Hopwood has confirmed that she did not delete these comments. Can you ask the NIH if they removed the comments at some point after they were initially posted? I assume the answer is no, NIH did not delete these comments, but I wanted to double check with you. Thanks, 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.
-
Thanks, Anna. So sorry but another question came in. Plaintiffs are claiming comments that showed up for them are no longer showing up and are asking if we deleted them. In the attached first document, the post shows 20 comments and Brittny Hopwood's comments containing words show. This is what she saw in July and she took screenshots at that time. In the attached second document, the post shows 7 comments, with only one comment viewable and none of Brittny Hopwood's comments. I looked on my personal account myself and confirmed I only see one viewable comment and none from Brittny Hopwood. Plaintiffs' question is: Ms. Hopwood has confirmed that she did not delete these comments. Can you ask the NIH if they removed the comments at some point after they were initially posted? I assume the answer is no, NIH did not delete these comments, but I wanted to double check with you. Thanks, 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 Sarah, You're correct - we did not delete these comments. I imagine since she made several comments in a row with no time in between the comments it violated FB's community standards and they were removed. See FB's policy regarding spam here: https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/spam/ Thanks! Anna
-
2022-01-18 15:25
Anna Kern
Hi Sarah, You're correct - we did not delete these comments. I imagine since she made several comments in a row with no time in between the comments it violated FB's community standards and they were removed. See FB's policy regarding spam here: https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/spam/ Thanks! Anna
-
Hi Sarah, You're correct - we did not delete these comments. I imagine since she made several comments in a row with no time in between the comments it violated FB's community standards and they were removed. See FB's policy regarding spam here: https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/spam/ fOoD)[ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia CE) a /OD) [ Lankford, nate (NIH/OD) [E] limeni, Lydia )) 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. 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 /OD) [E] /OD) [E] OD) [ nate (NIH/OD) [E] )E) Lankford, >; Polimeni, Lankford, limeni, Lydia 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. 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