that laid them to i took the spear obscene these people up, nor saw through . in the case of double standards, one of germany's most read newspapers built leads to the defense of a coven discussion panel is content with removed by youtube, but it's the south side newspaper that mercilessly lashed ortiz, german new service during a similar struggle with the video sharing site also add a british m p. 's inquiry says the government botched its cobit pandemic response leading to thousands of preventable debts. but a top cabinet member refuses to apologize. came to stop an apology now, but we'll know we followed the scientific advice apology. we followed the

scientific advice, would be an a chess twitter test, a new feature to try and make conversations more healthy by warning uses that things could get intense or heated. we put it 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 could 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. but critics warm and it'll hamper trade. ah, i today even against here in moscow. my name is colleen bray. welcome to you. well, use. we'll get on to a headline stories in just a moment. first though,

british tabloid newspaper. the son has published article, claiming the russian spiced the formula for moscow. sputnik v vaccine from the u. k . we talked about this on yesterday program. however, the story hasn't been debunked. with other media outlets the republish, the claims retracting, and apologize at all except the sun itself. that is all right, let's talk to our correspondence egos on of who's across this and we talked about it quite a bit on the program yesterday. we went through the claims and got some reactions as well. things have changed in the past 24 hours. well indeed they have, but well, just a quick debrief as to what happened. indeed the the, the sun, the tabloid published an article claiming that russian spies again, unnamed, just some spies that the apparently cracked the information rules of the oxford university store, the formula and the well, at least maybe not the formula, but the general idea behind the astrazeneca vaccine, and that allowed russia to create its own sputnik v vaccine. so since then, the creators of this particular vaccine, they released their own statement. and in the, in this state that statement,

they went into detail as to why that was not possible. and that was simply a case of fake news. so a few points that they're making is the fact indeed sputnik re and astrazeneca, the use, a similar approach like the technology. i mean, i don't want to get too deep into the, you know, biochemistry terms. but in general terms, the technology they're using is the same. but for example, astrazeneca is using the bi materials extracted from a chimpanzee from the, from the chimpanzees. while sputnik li uses a human platform, you know, it relies on a human platform. all still also on top of that, it's important to understand that well, so right now sputnik, the creators are working with astrazeneca to help them boost the efficacy of their vaccine. because here's a few things. for example, ah sputnik v was registered 1st only by russia at that point, but it came out out of trials and the russia started vaccinating its population

before astrazeneca vaccine had even been made available. on top of that. the land said that the medical journal, a very respectable medical, german journal. excuse me. it put the astrazeneca vaccine in terms of efficacy below sputnik lee, which actually rank to the fed only surpassed by the pfizer and the medina jam. so sputnik is right there in the top 3. so it doesn't really, it doesn't really work like this, at least well not to my amateur. well, no, to my understanding of the subject. so if you steal to someone's technology, it means that well, shouldn't, shouldn't it be better by definition by design. and if you are just copying something that others whoa, came up with and created it. and also, well, again, as put degree is boost simply more efficient and the developers are working with astrazeneca now to help them make this vaccine better. but indeed, this so all this didn't stop over the weekend. other outlets other than the sun. i

mean from publishing from publishing and re publishing that information. some of them are like the express, for example, they have apologized saying that they world that apparently they realized their mistake and that they were happy to publish the whole statement by the russian developers. or instead, instead of that article, but the sun is still too well a to write their rooms in this sense, be good, but after all, it was their exclusive. this is how they branded the article. so we'll see if there anonymous sources that the used will come through and if they will turn out to be a solid source of information, some being caught out for being a bit rough with the facts, expecting them to apologize. i wouldn't, i would debrief on that one, but anyway. okay, bershana, thanks very much for that. a german court has ruled 30 youtube was wrong to remove content from a covert discussion panel accused of spreading dis information. the court decided that the video sharing site had no right to stifle such public debate about the

pandemic and related vaccination issues. are these, peter oliver explains more about this case as well as similar ones, and how much the media's reactions varied. dol revolves around the you tube discussion program, 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 youtube. these were videos in which they challenged at the german government's 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 cov 19, about the government's handling of it and about all of the different scenarios surrounding the pandemic. now what we've add seen is the german tabloid build. well leap to support of alice out. then tish,

accusing the youtube platform of censorship, will now talk about sensor so by you chew yet whizzing an overly narrow opinion. corridors with respect to certain topics during the pandemic were found out that opinions that are not mainstream. the don't echo what the government would like to hear. these opinions were quickly confined to a corner branded as extreme with the removal. we now see how something is selectively targeted, dangerous, or thoughts on freedom of discussion took place. and the judge rightly decided against you to apprehend it. the big question is, can you tube assess to who sits there and says, what is right or wrong as from a medical standpoint? well build presented a very different message. last month, when arte deutsch, arte internationals, german language sis, the channel, had its youtube channel, permanently removed. for what was claimed, it was the, the publishing of covered disinformation. now, artie 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 balance handling of it. basically, both sets of videos were removed from youtube for the same reason. but artie deutsch as videos being removed prompted a very different reaction from germany's most red 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 its disinformation campaign. whatever way you slice it, this is a pretty big hypocrisy from billed. but what's really interesting is, what will happen next since the court has ruled that alice aft, den tish is videos shouldn't have been removed. will youtube put them back on their platform? and if they do that,

what does that mean for the future of artie deutsch on youtube or twitter thinks it's got an answer for when online conversations get rowdy and potentially offensive is trying out a new feature that was users entering an online chat that things could get quite heated, although some of the content being flagged in the trial run has left uses feeling a bit confused. oh, whoa. there intense conversation about the weather, bro. seriously, this is the lamest one yet. to return. what's intense about this conversation? can't believe this is happening on here under intense conversations. dear to it's a, i'm a generation x sir. it's gonna take more than an intense conversation to bother me . i. so how does it work? i have twitter spots, a chat thread 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,

or it's still not clear whether or not twitter scanning full contentious subject matter all the actual content of a conversation. i talk to a couple of outspoken american broadcast is who aren't afraid to hold back for a robust but reasonable conversation about it. does 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 all know, 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 planned. 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 that can a full file 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 lawn, 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 interaction is folly. the fact is were 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 count by 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 to me was not even born yet. for something that may offend it, and i'm squelch conversation to put up warning flags and all that. meanwhile, what they physically do, or legislative lead do or to a policy is truly offensive, and there's no warning for that. it just happens and then we'll get caught all

separately, facebook feeling the pressure to with ideas sweating in the us congress to hold the platform liable for content posted that we unpack some of that for you. enjoy freedom of speech on social media. well, it sounds like it's about to change the face, but with a blow. it has a plan on how to fix the evil and harmful system. a plan that may destroy the internet as we know it. and she presented it from the senate. i strongly encourage reforming section 230, what a section 230. 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. facebook was widely criticized for an anti conservative bias in recent years. facebook had purposely and routinely suppressed conservative story disadvantaging. conservative content centering,

conservative bloggers walking and centering religious and conservative political content for the platform was never moderated from the outside. from any guys on capitol hill that upsetting the new a superstar whistleblower has found a perfect solution. user generated content is something that companies have less control over their 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 air, very complicated. they have put their astronomical prophets before people, money driven decision making, shaving, you'll fade so one fac,

how about political sense? it algorithm is controlled by the u. s. government much better. what a great way to spread american values, all the majority party to the furthest corners of the us. people issue in bob way, can't 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. first of biden's stumbles on the steps. no, no, no. that's just defensive and digest your friends graduation bridges. ok.

but as i have a look at the gender neutral actor and the new what cinderella movie, i am your fabulous god mobile. no more inconvenient means and by didn't old man drugs because it pre approved by the u. s. government. well, if that's what happens to social media, maybe we'll finally start living in the real world. next, a member of the british cabinets, refusing to apologize after parliamentary inquiry accused the government of gravely miss handling the coven pandemic, to the extent that thousands of deaths could have been prevented. reporting from westminster. his shoddy edwards, dashti, well as an incredibly traumatic and triggering day for many, for instance, my best friend who lost her mother during the pandemic to covert. and she's incredibly furious at the government for its handling of the pandemic. but she certainly are not alone. there's thousands of bereaved families up and down the

country who are finding this report, a very difficult read indeed. so it's called corona virus lessons learned to date and it finds that number 10, delaying the lockdown back in march of the 23rd in 20. 20 was one of the most important public failures in the history of the united kingdom was still, the government's handling of the pandemic actually led to 20000 unnecessary deaths . but a cabinet minister unfortunately, was unable to refuse or even try and apologize for those claims. came to scotland apology though i would have thought what we'll know. we followed the scientific advice because my apology, we followed the scientific advice. we protected the natures. we took the decisions based on the evidence reformers. but of course, we've always heard, we've something so impressive entered as the pandemic. the will be lessons to learn . so it's still a very gracious look there from steven barkley, a cabinet office minister,

who actually in that very into the refuse to apologize some 11 times. but looking deeper into this reporting question, it's quite hefty. it's a 150 pages long and almost a year ago to date was when it was 1st established. and when this inquiry really began, now they looked at many key areas, including the preparedness, a for a pandemic, social distancing, social care and the impact on certain communities. plus, of course, the vaccines as well. now, a whole barrage of a criticisms really came out in this report, noting very quite big concerns, including access to p me as the governments much hailed track and tre, system, which fundamentally out was flawed. also suggesting at the start of the pandemic, boris johnson said that the care homes would not be affected. now, we know, in hindsight, they were actually the was affected loss. of course, numerous criticisms about the travel concerns. whether or not boris johnson should

have shut the borders at much sooner than he actually did. but the key finding really dates back to some 20 months ago that keith date of march the 23rd when the united kingdom entered its 1st lockdown. while this report says, scientists were talking some 2 months prior to that about how ready at the u. k. was in terms of dealing with a pandemic of this scale and actually argue so the government acted far too slow. it is now clear that this was the wrong policy and that it led to a higher initial death told them would have resulted from a more emphatic early policy in appendix, spreading rapidly and exponentially every week counted. well, boris johnson, the prime minister and his government have always maintained throughout this pandemic. the policy is guided by the data on the science and always maintains that it just simply put policy into place by the evidence that was presented to it. it

also says it's sticking by its promise of allowing a public inquiry into the pandemic. i'm the government's handling of it as well, but that won't come until at least and next spring. just to say that this a very report it's aim is not to point the fingers of blame, that is a quote within this report, but some already say there is only one direction of blame to point that finger and that is squarely at the government. well, the findings are no surprise to the founder of the coping victims campaign. group names, not numbers. who also says the government is to blame for the large number of deaths not been sent to the last couple of years. my brief mention embassy, government done an absolutely terrible job. and this is what happens when you have leaders in charge, a nurse, a society 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 wanted a disgrace. they didn't listen and also they didn't think about the lights. they

full about the money they for about the business contracts, and they didn't close. the board is simply just letting our people die a 100000 people today. however, the government want to go around. 3 you know, treat incontinence in the future. i think this is a big society wake up. we've got stop letting these on to rule. straight a private school, people run things. they don't understand. why is it that we allow prime minister? we've absolutely no common sense to run the serious pandemic. so i lost my grandfather and his best friend of it is when the next day. so my family have, had our fash have changed from it, but this, this isn't a personal lender, you know, some kind of emotional trauma. i think someone like boris johnson is prime example of what is wrong in british politics and has been wrong in british politics. the

last 200 years and i just feel if nobody stands up to point out that this is dennis side. it's just something that someone has to stand up and say, because like i say, and i, and i call to so many people will just take it on the chin. not i think that taken on the chin is not something that this, you know, unprecedented situation deserves up. next, mixing it up in california is toys, stalls. what girls and boys should not be separated by law blue. ah, ah, is your media a reflection of reality? in the world transformed what will make you feel safer?

isolation, whole community. are you going the right way? or are you being led somewhere? direct. what is true? what is faith? in the world corrupted, you need to descend. ah, so join us in the depths. all remain in the shallows. ah, ah, chinese bank and i've come for lending against entrepreneurs necessarily. they only wanna land against real estate speculation. so this is created the biggest real estate babylon history. that's now collapsing. oh lord

god. now if your child's looking to pick out a new barbie doll in a california toy store, you'll probably find it next to a g i. joe action figure. california is becoming the 1st us stay to force retailers to display toys and other children's products. an agenda, neutral way, the new law pushed by the democrats doesn't completely forbid stoles from having individual sections for boys girls, as long as they provide a general gender neutral area. it also to effects the state's largest retailers. those who call more than 500 employees, multi contributes. lauren chen, sets the law moll. apparently, well intentioned, is to 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 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 the 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 some 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 is 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 debate over confessional, secrecy as raging and france as the counter is top, bishop says it prevents the church from disclosing confessions of child sex abuse. it's after a poor revealed that since the 1950s, more than 300000 children, have been sexually abused by french catholic clergymen and other individuals associated with the church. the bishop was 7 to discuss the issue as the government says, the country's law must take precedence over the church. well, you know, what does she know? law is superior to law of the republic of it. and the question of the secrecy of

confession is amended by the survey report. it is a professional secrecy, and it has exceptions such as crimes against children under 15. this is eric long before who has been some inspired french government. after suggesting that priests shouldn't go to the police after they've heard a confession where somebody says that they have sexually abused a child, he made these remarks in the aftermath of that explosive report that was released by the solve a commission last week. that report found that at least $330000.00 children had been abused over a period of 70 years. and that 2 thirds of the victims were those who had been victimized by the priests themselves in the church. that 80 percent of the cases were boys aged between 10 and 13 years old and that not only did the church do anything to prevent what was happening,

but it also failed to report it. that's not only anger the french government, but it angered people here in paris by much collectively, i believe that they should systematically denounce it. they are responsible for their press. yes. so they must train them, isn't there in contact with the public, so they have to check that everything is going well. they need to face up to the responsibility. am take responsibility is just crazy. it's may, i'd. yeah, i don't. i don't know how it continues to carry out. already, don't mazama did on this, we're thinking this a bassetti. it took me away from the faith to dare no longer on turn to church because of that. they lose credibility. they lose their divine message. it's an acceptable today isn't acceptable with all this. we now? no, no, it's impossible. now this thinks he a really documented to act, thou know, to continue to hide behind the law of religion who are both. now while senior members of the catholic church in france and the vatican themselves,

the pope have expressed shame about the contents that were revealed by the silver commission for many. this is just another one. too many reports showing the abuse it's been taking place in the catholic church for decades, potentially even centuries. and for one victim here in france, he spoken to us at r t. he says that what eric do not before has said it shows that there is a serious problem within the french catholic church. true bolcko's hillary led him off. i think that this is the demonstration. once again, the incomprehension and the out of touch, dimension of these men of the church, they have cut themselves off from society in the realities of life. and this has led them to be out of control and when one is capable of committing so many crimes . when one is capable of carrying out such a work of death than its concealment, it does indeed leave an aroma of crime against humanity. which raises questions which.