NIH Hid Public Comments Package — page 73

/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. From: Kern, Anna (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 10:00 AM To: Imhoff, Sarah (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov> Cc: Spruill, Crystal (NIH/OD) [C] < @nih.gov>; Prince, Scott (NIH/OD) [E] < @nih.gov>; Lankford, David (NIH/OD) [E] < @od31tm1.od.nih.gov>; Myles, Renate (NIH/OD) [E] < @mail.nih.gov>; Polimeni, Lydia (NIH/OD) [E] < nih.gov>; Fine, Amanda (NIH/OD) [E] < nih.gov>; Haley Spencer < @palladianpartners.com> Subject: RE: PETA Lawsuit Update and Requests for Information 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.