means and the residual anger that remains, remains to be seen. he's speaking with his own conservative in peace tonight to try to also support. all right, all brian and that day thing off on the situation facing the british prime minister . both johnson, thanks for that. ah . all right, let's take you through some of the headlines here on al jazeera. now all the crisis at the border between ukraine and russia. that's taking center stage at the u. s. most powerful body top diplomats from russia and the us and their allies been facing each other at the security council and the states we're meeting there to discuss the situation. russia has a mass, tens of thousands of troops on its board with ukraine. moscow says it is not planning to invade. he's what washington, so massive the told the council the situation we're facing in europe. it's urgent

and dangerous. and the stakes for. busy ukraine and for every un member state could not be higher rushes action strike at the very. busy heart of the un charter. in addition to military activity, we've also seen a dramatic spike in cyber attacks on ukraine in recent weeks. russian military and intelligence services are spreading this information through state on media and proxy sites. and they are attempting without any factual basis to paint ukraine and western countries as the aggressors to fabricate a pretext for attack. the russian ambassador obviously had a very different perspective of those developments along his country's border with ukraine. he hit back that message from the us permanent ambassador to the united nations. something that i would like to put a question to i, u. s. colleagues,

where did you get that figure of 100000 troops deployed as you state on the russia, ukrainian water. that is not the case. we've never cited that figure. we've never confirmed that figure. if you'd like you not to texas, let me see that, you know, it's difficult to explain why our colleagues from the u. s. and a number of other countries are actively pumping ukraine with weapons and ammunition. and talk about this a great price for prime minister boss johnson. once again, 10, sorry. after findings from an investigation into parties, abby's official residence during locked down, so made public. a report by a senior civil servant says that has been serious failure to the standards expected of senior government officials. johnson, he told m. p. 's. he accepts all the report finding those i had lines and he continues after inside story ah,

facing the music spotify act uncovered 19 misinformation. artists have been pulling their songs from the streaming service curious at its leading pod path, both on his views on the corona virus. how 2 companies tread the line between potentially harmful lies and healthy debate. this is inside story. ah hello and welcome to the program. i'm danny navigator in dough home boycotted by musicians. son, feeling anger from listeners and doctors spotify has announced

a new policy, uncovered 19 misinformation. the streaming giant says it'll put content advisories before. and if it's podcast that discussed the pandemic, but it won't remove the episodes at the center of the storm. they were hosted by coven 19 vaccine skeptic, joe rogan, who's also advocated the potentially dangerous use of a life stock medication to treat the virus. one of the things that spot, if i wants to do that, i agree with is that at the beginning of these controversial podcasts like, specifically once about coded is to put a disclaimer and say that you should speak with your physician and that these people and the opinions that they express are contrary to the opinions of the consensus of experts, which i think is very important. sure. have that on there. i'm very happy with that . also. i think if there's anything that i've done that i could do better is have more experts with differing opinions, right after i have the controversial ones,

i would most certainly be open to doing that. he may be happy, but spotify, this is and fall sort of what rogan's the tractor is, wanted about 270 scientists and medical professionals wrote to the company demanding that it stopped the podcast, or from spreading what they describe disco with 1900 false herds, while singer songwriter is neil young and joni mitchell pulled their music from the platform, gaining support from other entertainment, entertainers, as well as the world health organization. so in a blog explaining his announcement, spotify chief executive daniel act wrote, it's important to me that we don't take on the position of being content sensor while also making sure that there are rules in place and consequences for those who violate them. the here i guess, to discuss all of the 20th and washington d. c. is courtney ranch, was a journalist and fellow at the u. c. l. a. institute for technology law and policy and barcelona,

jeffrey lazarus. he's the head of the health systems research group at bar slona institute for global health, and in the city of ma stressed, catalina go on to associate professor of law and technology at trust university. welcome to the program. thanks so much for your time with us. jeffrey, over to you 1st, i know that you said that we need to focus on providing explanations and guidance to combat false information. so spotify, as we've been reporting, has since that it's working to add advisory warnings to any podcast that discusses code 19 for you. is that a satisfactory response by salt spotify? i think it's a start to provide verified information, evidence based information. and i think we need to distinguish between with modify calls as controversial compared to what is simply wrong and false. there are different kinds of information. there's misinformation. and there's this information. and when to modify allows information that is directly dangerous.

like, arguing that vaccines recovered 19 are not safe or to take unproven treatments than i think that that passes a certain line. a courtney spotify has said that in the past that it has removed a more than 20000 podcast episodes. that cover cove in 1900 since we started the pandemic, but it didn't, with rogan the most popular podcast host with a report, a $200000000.00 downloads a month and, and they're also paying him 100000000 dollars. why they not touching joe rogan as a simply too powerful to touch money on him, and he has me on 10000000 viewers, i think, per, per episode as is, but i've read but i think there's something important here to think about is, you know, joe rogan, definitely had some problematic gusts on, but what's pretty shocking is that spot if i did not have a contact, moderation policy, publicized on its website that it did not have a missed or disinformation policy. 2 years into epidemic. 4 years after we've seen,

you know, the cambridge analytic us scandal, you know, all, all platforms that host user generated content and which host their own, you know, content that they're paying hosts to provide should have content, moderation policies. there should be clearly laid out. and they need to be pro active and thinking about how they're going to deal with these issues before they become major p. r. disasters, but also left point out, you know, spotify and fox news have both sided with their extreme hosts. tucker carlson is also one of the leading purveyors of disinformation and inaccurate information about covered. so, you know, this is not just about spotify, it's a, throughout the mainstream media important point series, which we're going to get into by catalina, just way on in on this for me for a moment, because rogan has insisted that he was quote,

interested in telling the truth, and they have an opinion he's referring to the guest that he had on a show. they have an opinion that's different from the mainstream narrative and i wanted to hear what their opinion is. i mean, does he have a points in any way? so here are what we normally look at when we see this debate, is there the inter narrative around freedom of expression? so spotify a media company that claims they want to be neutral. and they also want to portray opinions and popularity with very popular with some crowds such as jo grogan's and his guest friends is alex jones. but at the same time, also applying for other types of opinions on the platform. and i think that this is something that we really need to think about. so spotify has been generally perceived as this media treme service provider streaming service provider that has been quite hip and cool, and everyone has been using for music. but actually what we have seen in the past years, and even last year, i think, and in the spring,

spotify announced new forms of content monetization. and this is bringing more and more voices to the table. and voices, we're getting paid and they are getting paid for instance to a new subscription model that's bought it by using just bought it is now becoming really a media company and it's just courtney was mentioning it is very important that they have rules and track that they design rules and that they also align with the legal rules around the world. right. so, catalina, how much pressure have social media sites in general, really been under to tackle misinformation when it comes to code with vaccines throughout the pandemic. just give us a sense about so i think that misinformation is a very special category because platforms and we see this also with matter they have been really trying to develop policies very hard policies, or at least according to them around disinformation. so in here we already see that there is something that i call in our research as a regulatory debt. that basically we're putting in this very complicated tension

and situation because there between a rock and a hard place. so on the one hand, we want them to take measures and we want them to create their own policies. but on the other hand, the difference is the idea of this information. what is that from a legal perspective? are we speaking about cyber warfare? are we speaking about the sort of national security standards that need to be just completely explained better for platforms? so i think that this is a very important moment for regulators to really clarify what kind of information don't we want out there. and i think that this is what jeffrey was mentioning earlier, that some information is just blazingly wrong and some information is controversial . but how do we draw this fine and we should do it. i think that perhaps that, that those are some very essential point jeffrey over to you. i mean, how do you think that we can balance to serve individual liberties versus restrictions that are deemed harmful? well again, i mean i would go back to what is evidence based. so what has been,

for example, in the peer reviewed literature, which is undergone, you know, proper checks and, and controls what national agencies are reporting and what is the normative guidance of leading organizations like the world health organization. so, you know, we have in the world health organization and their group of experts, and we need to remember that the world health organization at the end of the day is governed by all of its members state, which is more than 190 countries in the world, so if there's normative guidance, coming out of w h o, and it's a misconstrued or simply spoken out against by spreading false information, mal information misinformation. there's different categories here that we can discuss. and i think that's where the media companies need to step in and they can controversial information. they can provide proven information and simply harmful

information. they need to actually stop it. spotify needs to have a clear policy, the way some of the other companies have, and we need to have oversight through, through, through, through different national collaborations. courtney spotify, new policy of labeling content about cover $1000.00 and the option to remove or suspend users. and podcasts that promote dangerous falls hood is quite similar to those that have been adopted by facebook and, and youtube and twitter. in the past, the bias spotify catching up. now though, well, i think this goes to the point around regulation, so i don't think that we need regulators to decide what is the correct information or what is not correct information. because let's also be clear, this is a, it's called the novel corona virus because it is new. a lot of new information is coming up. the thing about science is that you have to introduce new evidence and update your understanding as it happens. so it's not so clear, but what is clear is that regulator should compel platforms before you can,

you know, be a social media platform or provide a service that you need to have certain safeguards in place. one of those is to have clear conte moderation guidelines that set out what is your content moderation policy, and that that will then hold them to some level of account. similarly, we need to have independent oversight. you mentioned, you know, facebook and meta and twitter this contra moderation issues. one of the, you know, big tough things that were grappling with these days. but we can't just trust the companies that they're going to implemented. and we need to understand what the impact of the circulation of miss dis, mal information, et cetera is. so that speaks to the need for independent access to the data that these companies have about how this information, sir, can you clarify what you mean? i independent, what do you mean by that? we need, we need independent researchers who have access to the content,

moderation data and how it is actioned on by to platform. we know that facebook now called meta a squashed much of its research that they have had, expert researchers leave their company because they could not publish findings. of course, that's what francis hogan revealed in her a whistleblower report. so that's the type of oversight that we need is to enable regulators to see what the impact of their content moderation platt policies are. because also remember it's not just about what information is left up or taken down . it's how is it amplified who gets to monetize that and that has a big impact in the circulation of miss dis, information and of good information. how do you encourage quality information? and i do think that the steps that they're taking to put labels on these podcast is an important one. and you saw joe rogan responded to this pressure saying that he's going to try to have a bit more balance. but i think that the type of, you know,

instead of having government come in to regulate content, we want to see this marketplace of ideas where you have joanie mitchell and neil young saying, we're not going to be associated with this anymore. because we're concerned about this other policy over here, that's the marketplace of ideas that we want to be having catalina. do you agree with this that a courtney saying that you need independent oversight over this on this point completely. so i, i agree with a lot of the things that courtney mentioned and i think so independent oversight. you can look at this for coming from civil society. so researchers, academic researchers, you can see that the digital services act in the europe in union even has a category called trusted flavors, which hopefully in the next 2 years. busy will have exactly this role at the same time. what we also see is that there is a tendency a trend toward digital enforcement. so how do we check legal compliance on the internet? and interestingly, if we look at the new policies, the new content policies for spotify, they actually even have a category of illegal content where they say illegal content may be. and they give

some examples content that is going to be against the laws of different states. but this legal complexity discussion that arises from there. this is where what i was mentioning earlier that for instance, with media laws that can be more strategically adopted. and that can be more, let's say, not so difficult to interpret in some with some occasions, such as that around expressing yourself in a media outlet around public crisis. then i think that this is how regulators can actually help platforms and then demand legal compliance from these platforms. and the last one that i would like to make is on the one hand, yes there are. and this is, i think, where i diverged from opinion, there are a lot of other that have much more rigid and may be much more or better elaborated upon guidelines. but okay, you tube took down alex jones, but how many channels are there that are actually monetizing the type of content

that alex jones made? and this is what carlton gillis ended there. robin kaplan have called a tiered governance model. so social media companies also just kind of cherry bake who they want on the platform as well. they don't. yeah. okay, let me, let me put that to jeffrey because jeffrey catalina was just and mentioning youtube and we have seen this before because you too recently permanent, the band, a popular video channel, a conservative commentator also rumble a video content. producer rumble has been the target as well, criticized by some for being one of the main platforms for what they call conspiracy communities. same attack on sub sac for refusing to ban writer is deemed by some to be hateful. so is this a worrying trends? could this be seen as well? we ban anyone that's going off key. i don't think it's a worrying trend. i think it's the right step. i mean, we've been ahead, i'm the president of the united states, taken off of twitter for promoting unproven medicines. and going back to was

mentioned earlier, i agree that we need to get a balance between sort of government regulation and marketplace self regulation. but we have to remember that, you know, new young and joni mitchell and a few other successful musicians can afford to take their music off spotify and other musicians have been speaking out saying they agree with that step. they're against, you know, what rogan's been promoting yet they can't afford to leave. so i think we do need to look at where we get that balance into what you know, what can be said and not be said. and then that, you know, the got the companies, you know, they'll be an additional balance, i think, you know, with, with the market regulation and, and who we, as consumers, you know, want to be associated with. but not it, not, i don't think we can leave it fully to, to the market. and i think that there are some, you know, some slander and some falsifications that that shouldn't be allowed to be promoted . ok, just stand by for a 2nd because let's just talk about the business and fact. so spotify has more

customers than any other streaming service. it says it pumped out music and other content to about 380000000 people. and more than $180.00 countries last year, that's when it reported revenues of $9000000000.00. and it makes its money through what it calls premium subscriptions would charge a monthly fee, or you can listen with ads for nothing. so it's courtney, you know, at the bottom line these companies are making money and they need to do what suits them to protect their profit. something ah, well, yes, but on the other hand, it's pretty shocking that a $9000000000.00 company didn't have a publish content moderation policy. i mean that's, that's astounding. but i think that this goes to the point, which is he want a variety of platforms of it's absolutely right that if you're a smaller artist and you just depend on those algorithms to flag your moot music to those hundreds of millions of subscribers than you're a captive audience, but the thing is, as you know, if we're not promoting alex, you know, jones, of,

in a wars and, you know, these, these really pernicious purveyors of dis, information to millions of people. you know, there are, there's research out of youtube that shows that what was it 25 or 75 percent of the population was given information that linked them to extremism, by looking for very innocuous information. so part of this is getting greater transparency into the algorithmic decision making and what is the basis for how they're recommending content and creating these communities. but you want a pluralistic environment where you have a lot of different choices about where to get your music, where to do your social media and that sort of thing. and right now we have a bunch of very powerful hedge, a monic companies. and so you have limited choice and one way that regulators could deal with that is to increase data portability. let people take their data and their profiles with them across platforms to make it easier to switch music

providers. so if i is a pang spotify, customers say, you know, i don't like their policy. i want to move over to pandora or to whatever the other services are. i can do that more easily and have choice. the greater choices we have means that people can create different communities with different types of standards. so that if you want to really open horrific vial environment, you know, go to that platform. but if you want and a nicer, you know, environment less filled with just information you will have those sort of choices. available, catalina, you just don't have or a catalina. i see you nodding to courtney saying. yeah, exactly. so i think the, the, the main to switch here, what spotify has been that it hasn't had, or this is my opinion, but it hasn't had a content moderation policy because it has been perceived globally as this. busy music provider, right, like a streaming of music, but we saw that last year when it started creating new policies for its content, monetization of podcast. we saw that podcasts are, for instance, an example of a,

of a product that spotify wants to export and it wants to really monetize and, and really get a lot of followers around. so this is where we're speaking about news and we're speaking about opinions and content. moderation makes so much sense because a company moderation isn't just, you know, should we allow music that has the vulgar lyrics. but it actually become, becomes a matter that can really permeate the fabric of society. monetization that you speak of. i mean there come new challenges don't there? absolutely, absolutely. and we see this with all platforms and what i find interesting and also just to, to build on what courtney was mentioning with portability. i completely agree. and especially because we see that platform developed very similar features. so now i thought if i also had the same type of audio social media feature that, that glum house has become known for. so i think it makes a lot of sense to go in that direction. affordability for sure. just one more for you. before i bring in jeffrey and, and courtney once again,

but you were talking about the some the regulation going forward and what challenges do you see when it comes to to regulation? so miss space is normally, if we're speaking about freedom of expression, we're speaking about constitutional law, but we're also speaking about media law. and what one thing that we must remember is that if we look at this in a very legal way, then we're speaking about these laws from very specific jurisdiction. they will not be the same in india, in canada, and singapore, and was on beek. then these rules are going to really reflect other legal standards and platforms have a problem with trying to align their own interest to the massive complexity of, of regulation that is available. so obviously they're going to try to do what is better for their transaction costs. the question for regulators and also for enforcement authorities will be what is the future of making the invisible, visible meaning. making all of these rules not only visible for media for media

companies like spotify, but also directly applicable and their platforms. and jeffrey, i'd just like to put this to you. this is something that was written by the royal society, which i'm sure you're aware, the u. k. national academy of scientists. and it said that government and social media platforms should not rely on content removal for combating harmful scientific misinformation on line. and they go on to say that there's little evidence that calls for major platforms to remove offended content will actually limit scientific misinformation harms. i mean, people are ready. some people, i should say, mistrust institutions, the media and each other won't suppressing voices just make that worse. i think that's absolutely right in many ways because once material or individuals are demonized and removed from a platform, they get a new platform from which to to, to spread their information w h show just

a week ago published a really interesting myth busting document on untruth said, well missing truth and, and they, they, you know, we published or we wrote, you know, or share it rather the, what was a mess. you know what was incorrect information and then they put what was the truth to people could simply read, you know, that kind of false information. so instead of removing it, they actually brought it back out again. they said, but actually here's the truth and it would be nice if an organization like spotify, you know, could, could do that and could allow for that. and maybe even would need to provide the funding for it. but we're in a pandemic and organ it's, you know, platforms expand if i need to be called out because by providing that platform to people who are spreading misinformation, you know, they're, they're perpetuating the pandemic with the devastating consequences we have. you know, health, social, political, cultural and economic. so i think rather than just removing it, because once it's removed, people find ways to share it anyway. would be to actually show what was incorrect.

and then with this, i think coordinate a final word, final word for you because i see you shaking your head. go ahead. yeah, i'm actually the stuff you show that the platforming is very effective. so alex jones, when he was the platform from several major providers, including not just social media, but also say payment providers, payment processing providers, it has an impact because a lot of these, it's not just about like, let me get my opinion and you know it's horrible it's all about making money off a bit to find just information machines. so do you plot forming can be effective? and i think we have to be very careful and there are very good guidelines out there for how to report on mr. dis information without also elevating it and bringing it into the public sphere in a way that it may not have been before it got some sort of mainstream media coverage. i think we need to be really careful, and this emphasizes why we need and the kind of access to data so that we can do the research that will show what type of interventions are affected. ok,

we'll leave it there. thank you so much for joining us. courtney rod, structuralist lazarus and company, and i go on to thank you for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website al jazeera dot com for further discussion. you can go to our facebook page dot, facebook dot com, forward slash ha, inside store. you can join the conversation on twitter as well, or handle is a inside story for myself. and the whole thing with ah

for quite a few decades, garza has been dealing with political and economic turmoil. and its people struggle to access essential needs, like adequate quantities of potable water, a sufficient number of beds for a pregnant mothers, and limited access to up to date information for students. and in either the ground water is not sufficient to meet the daily needs of all of its residents. this led to the development of the new water treatment facility in han, eunice slowing down further pollution. the extension of, as if, as medical facilities was accomplished to provide expectant mothers with a safe and reliable opportunity to get the care they needed the kuwait library at the university college as science and technology is not only a repository of knowledge but an access point to the world beyond

i care about how the us engages with the rest of the world. we're really interested in take you into a play. you might not visit otherwise and feel as if you were there. ah ah, this is al jazeera. ah . hello, i'm sammy's aiden. this is the news, our live from dell ha, coming up in the next 60 minutes. the situation we're facing in europe. it's urgent and dangerous. and the stakes for ukraine. and for every you and member state could not be higher. the stand off between russia and ukraine take center stage at the u . n's most pal.