i be certain that was to live. ah, d o ah, the case of double standards, one of germany is most read newspapers builds leaps to the defense of a cove, a discussion panel discussion panel, whose content was removed by youtube. but previously that same newspaper mercilessly bashed r t s june german news service as it struggled with a similar issue with you to the u. k. power plant once lauded as super green turns out to be the country's biggest carbon dioxide culprit. i made a blistering energy crisis in the country. twitter tests

a new feature and a bid to make conversations more healthy by warning users that things could get intense or heated. we put the plan up for debate. they long ago lost control of their products. this is just another laughable way that they're yelling in the breeze for a horse that has long ago left the bar. they can kick you off, they get put up signs. they can throw pumpkins at you, it's their law and they own it. they pay for it and a new law will force big retailers in california to make gender neutral shopping areas for children. critic sworn, the rule will constrain businesses. ah, it's 6 pm and a beautiful autumn evening here in the russian capital. and you're watching our team to national. i'm your host donald quarter. welcome to the program. now a german court has ruled that youtube was wrong to remove content from

a coven discussion panel. after the video hosting service accused it of spreading disinformation, the court decided that you tube had no right to stifle such public debate about the pandemic and related vaccination issues. now to get more on that, i'm joined live by our correspondence, peter oliver. hi there, peter. so what's the reaction been, does the ruling set a precedent or why? well, it's all getting very interesting. it all revolves around the you tube. discussion pro gram alice off then tissue. everything's on the table, all is on the table in english. now, a german court has ruled that videos by this channel should not have been removed from you tube. these were videos in which they challenged at the german government handling of the cove at 19 pandemic. now, this show takes the form of, of a panel discussion program in which artists and actors as well as academics and

scientists. ask difficult questions about coven 19 about the government's handling of it, and about all of the different scenarios surrounding the pandemic. now what we've had seen is the german tabloid build. well leap to support of alice alpha. then tish, accusing the youtube platform of censorship. we'll now talk about censorship by you. chill yet within an overly narrow latino cora line and respectfully, little by little during the panoramic. we have the founded opinion car and not mainstreamed. i had a don't. a kind of government would like to hear by these opinions are quickly confined to a call. i rounded as extreme with the removal. we now see how something is selectively targeted. reasoning was hard for him. that house there were no proper reasons. it was all him for all turn horse dangerous to select on freedom or discussion that took place. and the judge rightly decided again that you feel yeah, the big question is of can you to basis or to sit there and says,

what is roy or roy? i from a medical stamp. what does this? yes, mean it's in a city. what if i should say something has made me very happy? i'm glad that he treat blasted 8 an actress and the argument has english house related to step. well built presents is a very different message last month when artie deutsch, artie internationals, german language says the channel had its youtube channel permanently removed for what was claimed. it was the, the publishing of covered disinformation, now auntie deutsch at the time, said. and they maintain that what they were doing was giving air to different opinions and asking those similar difficult questions about the coven 19 pandemic. and about the german government handling of it. basically, both sets of videos were removed from youtube for the same reason, but archie deutsch, his videos being removed, prompted a very different reaction from germany's most read tabloid newspaper. as

a reason for the measure youtube site, severe breaches of the platforms guidelines more precisely, artie deutsch had received a warning from the platform because the broadcaster was purposefully spreading disinformation about the corona virus pandemic. with this removal putin's power structure loses a central brick in his disinformation campaign. well, however you slice this, it's a big hypocrisy from build. but what is really interesting is now that a course is ruled in favor of those videos from alice often tish. what will you tube do if they reinstate those videos to their platform? what does that ultimately mean for auntie deutsch in their future on youtube? artes, peter oliver, thanks a lot for that update. now report by a u. k. parliament committee claims downing street botched, its response to the coven pandemic leading to thousands of debts that could have been avoided. now we're going to go live to alice tustin, founder of the covey,

the victim campaign group names, not numbers now. ah alice, were you surprised by that report or was it just something that the british public had already suspected? well, i mean, i've been assigned to the last couple of years in my group manual numbers that the government has done an absolutely terrible job. and this is what happens when you have leaders in charge in a nurse, a society that don't know what they're doing and they didn't follow the science. they didn't listen to the experts and they didn't listen to other countries that warned them when italy said that this was coming on, them laughed. and if you look on other islands behaved by japan and so critical to south korea and they did a much better job outcome disgrace, they didn't listen. and also they didn't think about the lives they full about the money they for about the business contracts. and they didn't close the borders simply just letting out people die a 150000 people. today of dawn. well, how much is downing street responsible? would you say for,

would you say more than $100000.00 deaths from covered in the okay. absolutely. you know that it's about the size of the city of worcester, which i'm sure a lot of listeners what i, but of one of the launch cities in our west midlands and the, at the end of the day when it's a sports team is playing is up to the manager to my home and when you've got people like my hancock, who knows nothing about healthcare in charge of the health system. essentially using it is a way to put shares into companies to make his own ami richer. and our prime minister did not attend find emergency probe meetings in the u. k. beginning of this pandemic. absolutely, everything is down to them. and when you look at the very beginning, this from them as well, and we talk about the i've heard immunity. now we're not, we're to, based on the plane. it's not right to let a sick in the old fool behind. and if not the kind of out she, the, our government entered with. we cannot be surprised at so many of dies. it just

stands to reason that this is exactly what they expected and they really don't care all alice, what do you think this report is going to lead to? will the government reconsider it's measures? oh wow. how ever the government want to go around and. 3 you know, treat incontinence in the future. i think this is a big society. you wake up, we've got a stop letting these born to rule astray out of private school. people run things, they don't understand. why is it that we allow a prime minister? we've absolutely no common sense to run the serious pandemic. it's been an absolute disaster. what should happen in a decent society? is that people like this should be on trial for crimes against their own country and put in jail. other countries seem to do this really well. other countries could say ali has messed up in such a way that it killed our people and they put them on trial. and there was so many

heroes in this country, as somebody thought to so many nurses, even the people that stopped the shouts and supermarkets that gave everything the only people that didn't give every thing is our government. what do you think the government could have done to prevent such a high death toll? if there was a different if there were different people in power? oh, that's so much. i mean, they could have closed the board as soon as they knew it and said you're, they could have asked populations where mosques, the, the measures here were almost embarrassing. the police didn't know what to do. if someone had a house on the roads during a lockdown in the wrong place and said, well, there's a lot going on. they couldn't do anything. it was absolutely not past the beginning of it. and then, ah, government gave china $600000.00 units in the face mass for free. and when it came to land as is needing, some of them have to buy in box. this is burson, one of the richest and most powerful countries on the planet. and i nurse is

improvised with in dogs. our prime minister doesn't care. and no way am i, you know, bashing our country in this. but government is colon outdated and over the class unmarried to crossing mess. and it should not be like this anymore, especially when it comes to on them. it's like this. we should not have these people make serious decisions that, that people die. alice tustin, founder of the coven victim, k r campaign group names, not numbers. thank you very much. for joining us, thank you very much. the british energy crisis is deepening with warnings that there could be even more gas price hikes. industries are feeling the pinch and are saying they could go bust. the question now is, are they ready to suspend their environmental aspirations at least for the time being because it's been revealed to that a power plant in the u. k. once hailed as super green has turned out to be the country's biggest c o 2 emitter. the scale of wood burning by tracks each year

means the power station is one of the top 5 or misses a particular matter. air pollution in europe, putting it in the same company as some of europe's worst coal power plants. greener . kina renewable energy is what the world is calling fall back with an energy crisis looming in europe this winter. there's a rush to stockpile fossil fuels, a move that will perish, carbon dioxide emissions a far from where policy makers want it to be. and this power plant in drax, in the north of england, claims to be the answer to the dilemma by switching to been biomass or would rather than coal. the plot claims of emissions from binding wood and negated by the growth of new trees, soaking up copping. again. and replacing those harvested for burning sounds good, right? i don't know how they prove it, an established it's carbon neutral, but if it is great, anything will max he out of it clean is going to be better now. yeah, that's

a good thing. i'd say it's a good thing job for yourself completely. go carbon your to it. it shouldn't have a credit to where you go. yes. i mean as far as i can see or tell that to haven't beaten it, anything different out of to it. but according to a report, the power station is far from green, and it's actually the country's biggest emitter of carbon pollution, was still it's the 3rd database in europe, in fact. and drives is the only biomass facility to rank in the continents plan of c o 2, mrs. today you have it while selling itself as copper neutral running would actually bounces out more emissions and from burning coal, you to its lower energy density than fossil fuels would, has to be burned in higher volumes to produce the same amount of energy. but in no attempt to clear the air, drax responded to the claim, saying the figure is a false. figures are inaccurate and completely adults with what the world's leading

climate. scientists at the u. n. a into the mental panel on climate change say about sustainable bio mass been crucial to deliver in global climate targets. despite the figures the site still managed to attract more than 800000000 pounds, an u. k. government subsidies. that's a 2000000 pounds every single day and 2020 alone because of course, right. energy production reflects well on the government's climate record, but all of this is left the locals at boiling points, shock, and alienate to be fair. constantly 1000000. yeah, that's not very good. if that's true, that is of worry. yeah that's, that's not good. well, not very good. actually. now, no rabbit got to some to go out there a light to the community more than anything can light round there to build up a bit better and better for the children and things like that. more than, oh, rather than go through a bigger power station laila. so despite the neutral a negative pledges, in this case by our energy seems to be failing to protect the planet. in fact,

it seems to be making matters worse. the government is trying to reduce carbon dioxide subsidizing something that is hugely covering. carbon dioxide seems to be a very strange way of spending government money. it's green when it wants to be positive in the new cycle, but it's not green. when he looks at the need to ensure that we have fuel security . it's because it's an ideology. they've almost got to the stage where it becomes a religion. for them, nothing matters more than ensuring that we remove carbon dioxide and move to the green agenda. of course, for many of them, there will be a financial benefit. some of them will sit on boards of directors of the new green companies. others will be part of the non governmental organizations that receive funding from the european union and other countries that also support the green agenda. more news after the break?

ah, ah, join me every thursday on the alex, simon, she'll. and i'll be speaking to guess of the world politics sport business. i'm show business. i'll see you then. mm. back. kaiser's financial survival guide. housing bubble. oh, you mean there's a downside? artificially little mortgage, right? don't get carried away. was calling to report who all those driven by dreamer shaped banks concur some of those with

who dares sinks? we dare to ask oh, well, come back to the program. next we go to the realm of online discussions. twitter thinks it's got an answer for when conversations get rowdy and it's opinion offensive. the social networks trying to find out, trying out a new feature that warns users entering an online chat that things could get quite heated. although some of the content flagged and the trial run has left users a bit confused. oh, woe there intense conversation about the weather, bro. seriously,

this is the lamest one yet. to return. what's intense about this conversation? can believe this is happening on here under intense conversations did to it's a, i'm a generation x sir, is gonna take more than an intense conversation to bother me. so how does it work? if twitter spots a chat threat with opposing views being thrashed out and someone wants to join in a message pops up saying heads up. conversations like this can be intense and still not clear whether or not twitter is scanning for contentious subject matter or the actual content of a conversation. but my colleague k collin brain discussed the issue with a panel of experts. this sound like a noble idea that's doomed to fail because if it's moderated by humans, it's open to claims of subjectivity. if it's algorithms, what we'll now how they can't really understand the nuances of language and discussion kind of work. no,

no. is the very simple answer there and twitter itself has no idea how to moderate it, and winds up getting the vast brunt of some of the most insane arguments that bubble up on that site. so they long ago lost control of their product. this is just another laughable way that they're yelling into the breeze for a horse that has long ago left the bard. this is no goose mistake. twitter is not fumbling the ball. they are not somehow incapable of managing their audience. it is going exactly as plan. imagine the idea when you watch television or anywhere the world did you get a disclaimer? the following contains lipstick. children be advised, do you want to watch it? yes, you do. the 2nd, they put up a warning saying whatever you do, don't touch that. dia, whatever you do, don't push the red button. i'm going to be the 1st in line along with millions of others to push the red button. this is the perfect brand new bait hook in the cheek

off we go. is there a danger that there are certain people, certain company, certain subjects they're going to fulfill, be judged before any auto body is even taking place? absolutely. if they, this is already algorithmically put to the top of the queue. it's already algorithmically fed to everybody because there is at the base level, no difference between intense content and profitable content. the content that people want to engage with that stay on the site longer, and therefore give twitter more opportunity to serve ads in between everything else . it would be intellectually honest for us to remember that it is a free platform like facebook, a free platform. they make all the money you get to play on their front yard. they on the lawn, they can kick you off, they can put up signs, they can throw pumpkins at you, it's their law, they own it, they pay for it. we just go crazy on it. so pretending like

a phone call where you have an implied a privacy inter action is folly. the fact is we're guests there at somebody else's dinner table and they keep throwing hand grenades and the soup a know that the more engaged when you get the more rancor and the more engage when you get the more ads. but also you get more of a discourse on why there shouldn't be rancor. so twitter is, is to me the most incompetent of, of the people doing it because they are the most scared of their audience. but then again, if i worked at twitter, i'd probably be the most scared of my audience duke. when the free speech advocates like this, let's face it, they can be the noisy or end of the digital conversation county because no one's getting bad. no one's getting thrown off the conversation is still allowed to happen. that's a good thing, isn't it? well, in my opinion, it is what's offensive to you is not offensive to me. and who's to say what is offensive. so that's why it's again, again,

it's private property. so we do have these issues and problems. think of the beauty though. if you're a politician, you can do horrible things. you can stand up and say, i'm going to defend little timmy was not even born yet. for something that may offend it and i'm trying to squelch conversation to put up warning flags and all that. meanwhile, what they physically do, or legislative leave do. ready or do it, policy is truly offensive and there's no warning for that. it just happens and then we'll get caught. and another social network, facebook is feeling the pressure after ideas swirl in congress to hold the platform liable for content posted there. we unpack something for you, enjoy freedom of speech on social media. well, it sounds like it's about to change the face, but was a bla has a plan on how to fix the evil and harmful system. a plan may destroy the internet as we know it. and she presents it from the senate. i strongly encourage reforming

section to 30, what a section to 30, and why is it so important to provide immunity from liability to website platforms? for instance, it doesn't allow anybody to serve facebook for any content created bytes uses. mock, zuckerberg himself is far from a moral beacon. placement was widely criticized for an antique unsafe did bias in recent years. facebook had purposely and routinely suppressed conservative story disadvantaging. conservative content centering, conservative bloggers, blocking and centering religious and conservative political content for the platform was never moderated from the outside. many guys on capitol hill that comp setting, the new a superstar whistleblower has found a perfect solution. user generated content is something that companies have less control over there of a 100 percent control over their algorithms. algorithms i, i based mechanisms which determine how your facebook feed looks. what post you see

1st thing in the morning, a picture of your friends, newborn baby, a viral cap video or an offensive political mean. right now the algorithms are controlled by facebook and operating principles of far from transparent. the company has long drawn criticism for not sharing many details on how the content is prioritized. these technological systems are walled off era, very complicated. they have put their astronomical prophets for people, money driven decision making, shaving, you'll fade so one fac, how about political sense? it algorithms controlled by the u. s. government much better. what a great way to spread american values, all the majority party to the 1st quarters of the uh, people lives in bog. wait. com. wait to appreciate it. with the proposed governmental body directly in charge of facebook algorithms, there would be no constraints. facebook seems to be eager to cooperate with the authorities. instead of expecting the industry to make societal decisions that

belong to legislators, it is time for congress to act. the current algorithms are definitely far from perfect, but i bet will miss them. what's the government guessing charge? imagine what a u. s. sense of the social media would look like. videos of a messy afghanistan withdrawal. definitely not interesting. and to graphic. don't show it to anybody. person biden's stumbles on the steps. no, no, no. that's just offensive. and digest your friends graduation bridges. ok. but as i have a look at the agenda, new to actor and the new website to read a movie, i am your fabulous god, mo, mo, in convenient means. and by didn't old man drugs can be counted pre approved by the us government. well, if that's what happens to social media, maybe we'll find he's thought living in the real well now if your child's looking to pick out a new barbie doll and a california toy store,

you'll probably find it right next to g. i. joe. that's as california is becoming the 1st us state to force retailers to present toys and other children's products in a gender neutral way. the new law pushed by democrats doesn't completely forbid stores from having individual sections for boys and girls. as long as they provide a gender neutral area and also affects only the state's largest retailers, those with more than $500.00 employees are to contributor lauren chen says the law, while apparently well intentioned, is too constraining on businesses. i'm actually pretty open minded. in the fact that i think if you're a little girl wants to play with the boys toys or use a bluetooth brush by all means you should let her. and likewise it's not the end of the world. if your little boy wants a barbie doll. ok, there are just ways that children express themselves sometimes that don't necessarily mean anything deeper than i want this specific toy. and i think a lot of parents on both sides of the political spectrum can kind of drive

themselves crazy. trying to needlessly psycho analyze every little decision their young child makes. oh my little girl, played with a trained is that mean she's trends or a lesbian is like, you know what? it's a toy layer could play with whatever they want to play with. and i know isn't popular say nowadays, but by and large gender stereotypes exist for a reason and you know, little girls. there is a reason why they are more likely to want to play with make up and dolls, dresses, and easy bake oven stuff than little boys. and all this california law does really is make stories needlessly designate gender neutral sections when it's like a right for 95 percent of their customers. you're going to know what the little girls want to shop. you're going to know what the little boys want to look at. there's nothing a neatly wrong with having a gender neutral toy area if that's really what stores want to do. but like why, why mandate it? why has it gotten to this? if you're in california and you run a business, not only do you have to give an obscene amount of your money away in taxes,

but the government is also telling you how to run your business, who you can hire, how much diversity you need to have. what things you can sell, how you can sell them, and what we need to understand here is that control is kind of a spectrum. no, california may not technically own your business if you choose to operate in california, but it is going to be taking large amounts of your revenue of your profit. and it is going to be giving you a lot of rules and regulations over how you can operate your business. for more details on your top news stories, check out our website, r t dot com or follow us on to. i'll be back with more news in just about half an hour, so stay with us. ah, ah, ah ah.

ah ah, there is other places to play but also within the daniels trulia, the little fish with the basilica or the other mother like melissa with was just food say that even when you would you that is images levels of was good for supposedly good. have my did some, i would say again has been music. his image is still weak. i'm on my side with your hope was out of the to get a lot if i deal with all of your plan it some way up. all of the fellow

with the to the shelter worship with with ah, i unmatched kaiser. this is the kaiser report, you know? sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. stacy? megs,

i think you're talking about george soros is his portfolio. well, certainly his theories on reflex 70 because we're going to talk about this because i think for me it helps explain the situation out of china regarding ever a grand, the largest property developer in the world. well, certainly the one with the largest debt, $300000000.00 in debt gone horribly wrong here is from investor pedia, understanding reflex, 70 reflex city theory states that investors don't base their decisions on reality, but rather on their perceptions of reality. instead, the actions that result from these perceptions have an impact on reality or fundamentals, which then affects investors perceptions and thus prices. the process, a self reinforcing, intends toward this equilibrium, causing prices to become increasingly detached from.