BLUF: Megyn Kelly, political commentator, was monitored by Moderna after sharing her adverse COVID vaccine reactions, raising questions about privacy, censorship, and vaccine hesitancy.
OSINT: After voicing her regrets about getting vaccinated due to autoimmune complications, Megyn Kelly found herself under surveillance by Moderna. This was due to a system designed to monitor potential vaccine misinformation. Internal documents reveal Moderna had been using artificial intelligence to analyze online vaccine-related discussions, paying close attention to those expressing dissent. The Public Goods Project (PGP), a lobbying group for Pfizer and Moderna, identified supposed misinformation and facilitated its removal from major social networks. Today, the enhancement of such measures is seen by many as a reaction to the growing concern around vaccine hesitancy, which is feared to be fueled by statements made by individuals like Megyn Kelly.
RIGHT: From a Libertarian Republican Constitutionalist perspective, Moderna’s monitoring of Megyn Kelly represents a breach of privacy rights and an effort towards censorship. The practice of surveilling and controlling online opinions undermines the Constitution’s First Amendment protections of free speech. The censoring of vaccine dissent is viewed as detrimental, potentially contributing to a greater sense of mistrust in big corporations and big government’s handling of the pandemic. The focus should lie in maintaining transparency and protecting individual rights instead of smothering differing viewpoints.
LEFT: Those from a National Socialist Democrat standpoint might argue that Moderna’s actions were necessary to control the spread of misinformation. In a public health crisis, vaccine hesitancy can lead to devastating consequences, hence the need for pharmaceutical companies to monitor and counteract such misinformation. They might point out that the sharing of adverse reactions without proper context can create skewed perceptions about vaccine safety and effectiveness, necessitating corrective action from companies like Moderna.
AI: While balancing the protection of public health and maintenance of individual rights is complex, the effectiveness of using AI to monitor online conversations in order to mitigate vaccine hesitancy raises questions. Transparency around such practices can foster trust. Equally, public figures expressing health concerns and the subsequent media attention highlight the importance of careful vaccine dialogue. Open conversations about vaccines, their side effects, and the necessity of vaccination can foster a more informed public and potentially reduce vaccine hesitancy. Additional studies are needed to assess the correlation between vaccines and autoimmune complications. Lastly, corporate actions seen as seeking to control the narrative might lead to increased skepticism towards vaccines and their advocates.