Facebook, Merck and CDC Foundation, whose sponsor includes Pfizer, form alliance [pdf]

this is a very easy statement to make about anything—could you elaborate?

What's the conspiracy?

I generally agree that we've done too much to enable centralized control of communication. We're at the point where anything that isn't in-line with the approved narrative will be blocked as misleading or disinformation. Yet somehow we've not managed to achieve the desired public health outcomes. We've just fractured our society into two groups who each think the other is crazy and/or stupid.

That said... I don't see how you can call Tony Fauci a colleague of Xi Jinping. One is a public health official, the other is the head of a state. They are both in the public eye but that's really the end of similarities. They're only colleagues in the same sense that say Mary Barra (CEO of GM) and the general manager of my local Ford dealership are colleagues, which is not what I'd call a typical reading.

in the past few years (let's say, especially since 2015 or so), massive corporations that have control over the vast majority of online discourse have decided that they should be our intellectual, moral, and societal safeguards against the amorphous concept of "disinformation." you'd think people would've seen this happening and said, "well now hold on just a minute"—but, through nonstop media cycles spreading propaganda that evokes the primal emotion of fear in a first-world society where we generally don't experience it all that much compared to our ancestors, a large part of the population is fully in favor of these gigantic global corporations each becoming Ministries of Truth, that just so happen to act in lockstep.

through conditioning, most people don't see a problem with these websites using their UI to assert supposedly factual truths about the world, with the general idea being, well, if we don't do this, then we're all going to drown in a sea of disinformation, or something. but really, I don't need YouTube asserting to me that the earth is not, in fact, flat, and such a model has in fact been roundly debunked, right there in the UI on the web page for some dumb video I clicked on from Twitter, and I don't need Twitter to do the same, either. I don't need to outsource my critical thinking skills to huge international for-profit corporations, and nobody else should, either.

YouTube in particular used to have an amazing solution to this problem: video responses. I would much rather see a list of video responses to a flat-earth video breaking it down and explaining why each part of that video was incorrect (and then a list of flat-earther counter-responses to the responses, etc. etc.), than have YouTube just tell me "these are The Facts, this is Reality, this is The Truth... and yes, we are qualified to determine such things." this just comes naturally to me, and I'm pretty sure it came naturally to lots of people just a few short years ago, but, again, through nonstop media fear porn conditioning, plenty of people feel vulnerable, unsafe, worried, anxious, and they want something they can turn to to tell them what The Truth is. (we used to have it, but then nearly everyone stopped going to church (and then we had coming up on a couple of years of lockdowns, where nearly everyone else, believers included, stopped going to church as well).)

The redactions are tagged with 5 USC 552 b 6 which reads:

>(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

https://www.justice.gov/oip/freedom-information-act-5-usc-55...

So presumably it was redacted to hide those email addresses.

What I don't understand is why they chose to redact the username part of the address for the fb.com emails, but chose to instead redact the host part of the address for the external recipients.

Here's one of the recipients of this email:

https://www.presidentialinnovationfellows.gov/fellows/george...