Some recent discovery has been released in the Missouri v. Biden case, namely from Rob Flaherty, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Digital Strategy. If you are unaware of what may be the most important civil liberties case in the modern era, you can follow our previous reporting here, here, and here.
Quick recap: This case is the MOST IMPORTANT civil liberties case we have seen in years and maybe the most important ever. The case is brought by Missouri and Louisiana, along with other individual plaintiffs. It asks the court to bar the government from colluding with social media companies to limit free speech.
They originally wanted to depose Flaherty, who was added to the suit in an amended complaint after expedited discovery revealed that he was ALSO involved in censorship activities. The judge granted that depo, but the 5th circuit (on mandamus) wanted the judge to reconsider because they hadn't taken written interrogatory and discovery yet. These releases are a product of that discovery.
A few highlights? Sure. At the behest of the White House, Facebook was deamplifying and demoting vaccine injured patients from sharing their experiences even though the posts didn’t break terms of service. I detail this a lot more below. Additionally, Twitter refused to remove a post at the request of the office of Jill Biden, and really took a lashing. Also, did you know they were even censoring on WhatsApp?
This is really terrible and is exactly the kind of thing the government denies it did but clearly is doing. These are case winners here. Twitter responds to Flaherty, telling him they are taking action on a tweet by @RobertKennedyJR, and Flaherty asks to look at others like it.
This is pretty damning. Here Flaherty is scolding Facebook about content from accounts he disagrees with. They clearly want the vaccine "hesitant" to only get positive information on the shot. Think about this in context and from what we have known the entire time. Chilling.
There is just no reason for the White House and the POTUS to be involved in what social media platforms are doing to censor information that the White House doesn't want Americans to see. It's just completely unconstitutional, and the brazen manner in which this occurs is something.
These emails with YouTube are so informative I want to take them one at a time. How is YouTube handling the de-amplification of "hesitancy" themed video content for the Vietnamese community? You would think he was the CEO of YouTube reading these.
Again, Flaherty is acting like the CEO of "Trust and Safety" at YouTube here. He's asking all sorts of questions about how their algorithms work and "appreciates they are not recommending anti-vaccine content."
Beanz interpretation: "How did you arrive at your solution for this YouTube? I'd like to know."
Beanz interpretation: "Let's make sure everyone is vaccinated, and let's make sure that we meet more regularly, mkay?”
In my opinion, knowing what we know now, this is because the more people vaccinated, the less they can hide what is happening to the vaccinated…
Here is yet another set where Flaherty is acting more like a supervisor and less like an employee of the U.S. citizen. I am taking this chain one by one. Flaherty is in RED, Facebook is in BLUE, and the original text is also Facebook in response to questions from Flaherty. None of this is ok. Off we go.
Understand first, WhatsApp is a chat application where people converse with one another or in small groups. This is the level of control they are looking for over your conversations. Additionally, this may be new information on what the company is doing in terms of censorship. 
Who feels like this is just fine for a one-to-one chat application that is used by people because they bill it as a secure encrypted place to chat? Sure, they can't read your messages, but they can still (and do) control the conversation.
It's all in the words they use. They've attempted to co-opt the English language. Here they talk about how they are "empowering" people to seek out "reliable" sources of info. Flaherty wants to know how actions on this platform wrap around to other Meta properties.
A digital censorship trail.
A receipt list.
This isn't a CEO of Facebook or a product lead; this is the White House—an unelected, appointed bureaucrat.
Flaherty is an unelected government bureaucrat who, again, is acting like some sort of high-level product manager at whatever social media company he is engaged with. Your tax dollars are hard at work for what appear to be petty tyrants.
Ah, yes. The "fact checkers" we all know don't really check any facts and are connected to Global establishment narratives, like those perpetrated by the WHO. Chatbots can tell people what to think. Remember, this is WHATSAPP.
Don't think this is just about COVID. Flaherty is also concerned about election-related "misinformation" floating about in user conversations on WhatsApp. Remember, WhatsApp is a chat application, where you talk to your friends, family, or group of friends. It seems to be very important to them that they are in your virtual living room.
This is fine. No, it isn’t fine, it’s unbelievable hubris.
"I want some assurances, based in data, that you are not doing the same thing again here."
A few points. Who is he to demand assurances? He's a government employee. Also, if the "insurrection" was planned in large part on Facebook, why didn't they meet the same fate as Parler?
Beanz interpretation: "Facebook here, checking in with Daddy government for my pat on the head. Here is how we are making sure vaccination rates are up, as per your request"
And a passive-aggressive reply from "Daddy," letting them know they've done a bad, bad job.
Beanz interpretation: "We are so sorry! We are really trying for authoritative sources only, because we are authoritarian, and we can't believe those accounts were even there!"
Understand the government helped write the TOS. We are learning this every day, and will have more in that space.
-
Ok, this one is, by far, the worst one yet. Listen to how he SCOLDS Facebook that they aren't doing a good enough job censoring. Please read this, especially the highlight. This is a "boss/abused employee" relationship. Cast aside what a jerk he is; this is the White House!!!
Facebook is reaching out to explain that they accidentally allowed content that DOES NOT BREAK THEIR TERMS to go viral. "We should've demoted this more quickly, boss, Sorry" This is unbelievable.
Facebook is reaching out to explain that they accidentally allowed content that DOES NOT BREAK THEIR TERMS to go viral. "We should've demoted this more quickly, boss, Sorry" This is unbelievable.
Flaherty thinks he is "CYA" here, but demotion and boxing content into a place no one can see it IS STILL CENSORSHIP at the hands of the government. This is included in the Temporary Injunction request.
This is the most heart-wrenching so far. As vaccine injury begins to rear its ugly head, people flock to Facebook to share their experiences. Facebook tells the government that they are taking action on that content even though it is true and doesn't violate TOS. This is evil.
I have a lot to say about this. Here we have Facebook admitting there is a barrage of content like this, and they are stopping anyone from seeing it. This is a crime against humanity. Many needed community and a place to find help after being injured. Your government and Facebook wouldn't allow that.
If this isn't one of the most cruel, inhumane, terrible things I have ever seen in my entire life, I don't know what is. Speaking as Tracy, the human and not the journalist, I am not sure how these folks can sleep at night. They know. They knew. They didn't care.
Flaherty wants "honest and transparent" conversations with Facebook but would never DREAM of being "honest and transparent" with his employer; YOU.
This email is from Flaherty to Facebook about a Tucker video on vaccines that went viral because it was true. Just read the TONE here… This guy is really terrible.
Facebook responds by correcting Flaherty on his hyperbole and telling him that even though no Terms Of Service were broken, they are labeling and stopping its circulation anyway. This is government-directed censorship. Flaherty is one of the KingPins. By default, that is also the POTUS.
Flaherty pushes back, again acting as boss. The theme is concurrent. He blames Facebook again for the "insurrection," also hinting the government at some level was involved with Trump being banned, along with others.
Again, whether a social platform outright removes content or you, or they demote and make hidden your content, that is censorship. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, does it make a sound???
Facebook takes a while to respond, probably because they are like, "this dude isn't the boss of me," and Flaherty pokes them again. "Those questions weren't rhetorical" (Beanz personal note: Sheesh, he is insufferable)
On Twitter, there was a misinformation append to a government Tweet. Flaherty didn't like “Birdwatch” in action.
It's just getting repetitive now. "How are you handling things that are dubious, but not provably false."
Erm, dude, it's sort of not in your purview. It's just not. Why is he doing this? (That WAS rhetorical)
This last one is a doozy. The White House is ARGUING back and forth with Twitter, refusing to remove a piece of video content that was edited. There are 5-6 emails with Jill Biden's Press Secretary going back and forth about why Twitter won't remove content. They keep saying no...
Flaherty jumps in here after escalation because he can't believe they won't act. The only reason we have this is because he was added to the email chain. It looks like we can broaden discovery now to the FIRST LADY. Please click this. Read the entire thing.
In closing, the WH is directly engaged in censorship efforts across major social media platforms. This discovery is a case killer for the defendants. Coupled with everything else we have seen, it's devastating.
What's next? There is a reply due in February to the (hang with me here) reply by the Plaintiffs to the motion to dismiss. Expedited discovery remains active during this time. Then, the judge will rule on the motion. I am CERTAIN he will rule against it. He has once already, basically.
