NIH Hid Public Comments Package — page 96

/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. 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.