here said basil makes dreams come true that every one who falls in love with people like mm ah headlining this hour on our t. a british tabloids claim that russian spies stole vaccine secrets gets rivaled, digging deeper, calling out the story as an accurate, an opaque but the sun is yet to clarify or apologize. also a case of double standards, one of germany's most read newspapers built leaps to the defense of a cobra discussion panel is content with removed by youtube, but it's the same newspaper that mercilessly laughed. our teeth, german news service during a similar struggle with the video sharing site plus the british emp, his inquiry says the government botched its cobit pandemic response leading to

thousands of preventable deaths. but a top cabinet member refuses to apologize. came to scotland apology out of films, but when we focus on civic advice, we've calculated, we followed the scientific advice would be an a chess twitter tests, 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 product. this is just another laughable way that they're yelling into 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. ah, are good to have you with this tuesday evening at 9 here in ma go. my name is

colleen bram. welcome to wealth news from arte international search for you. then this our britain's popular press is taking aim at a leading tabloid paper there, which claimed yesterday that russian spies in person stole the formula from moscow's sputnik v vaccine. from the u. k. the sun's vague splash got widely picked up as other outlets went and ran with it, but now at least one rival is retracted at and apologize. the sun though, has not. let's talk now to correspond at egos dawn of his across this forest. so eager their sons standing by its claims, but what's changed? rivals mind? well, colon, indeed you summed up the story pre perfectly, i should say, because indeed, over the weekend, the sun published this report, the branded it as their exclusive. and it was based on anonymous sources, that was the main well discrepancy on the floor that others pointed out saying that it was openly sourced. and basically, they claim that somebody, some russian spy in a bond like move, you know, came in probably, snuck into into,

into the lab and well, hacked, the vault, the information vol, turns of snatched the vital information on the astrazeneca as oxford vaccine. and so, but right now the russians are, they have stepped forward saying that it is completely false the release, the statement so another tabloid of the daily express. they were happy to pick up the story and republish the story based on the sons article. now they have well retracted whatever, whatever they had to say and swapped the story. the original story for basically a statement from the russians. his something that they had to republish have a listen is, has come to our attention that this was false as the information about the inventor of the sputnik v. vaccine gambling national research center for epidemiology and microbiology is publicly known. the article also contained false information as an apology. we are happy to set the record straight and published the following

statement from the russian direct investment fund. well, the daily express is so far, one just one outlet too well to confront it if i may say. so the son with this information and 2 will openly step forward and say, well actually that report that we were published was not true. so now the ball is the sun's cord, which is the so far sticking to its guns as well. probably you would, if it's your exclusive, probably there, you know, well, reaching out to their sources to get some information to back their journalism, but certain discrepancies. i mean, some const gurley. well, some contextual evidence suggests that, well, there's something often that this article, this claim that spies stole the blueprints for the astrazeneca vaccine. it has to be clarified. because while the technology behind the vaccines, the astrazeneca, sputnik, we are indeed similar astrazeneca is based on world tissues and will build something that they got from chimpanzees. while sputnik v is based on the human platform. so

they are using very different materials from 2 very different biological species to well, to base their vaccine. on also, on top of that sputnik re, was the 1st vaccine to be registered in the world and came well before astrazeneca . and its efficacy was proven to be higher than astrazeneca by the lance, at one of the, one of the world's leading scientific journals. so sputnik, he was actually, well in the top 3, only surpassed by the quite visor and the medina jams. so one would assume that while the original, which is as the sun, is claiming at the astrazeneca vaccine, that the original should will be superior to a clone. and to a rip off. but, well, the facts show that it isn't, it isn't like that. and even on top of that, split mccree developers are right now, well, cook cook, they are collaborating with astrazeneca to make their vaccine more efficient. and

more over the british, a security minister, minister of security when confronted when asked whether or not this report was true, he hesitated to back. the sons claims have listened. i'm can't comments won't comment on the specific case, but it would be fair to say correct to say that we face threats of this type that are different. they're more sophisticated, they're more extensive than they ever have been before. well, so essentially everything that he has had to say here is, well, in plain human words, not political talk that, well, the british government is facing cyber threats. and so that's it. and nothing about something being stolen. so was eve, the son react to the new revelations in any way given that other well other, other outlets have already called their reporting opaque leaves sourced. so we'll see. or if they just decide to let the whole thing slide, yet a sort of popular science site, pour some cold water on all this as well. i mean,

i was one of the saucy a science sidekicks modo, but compared to some british tabloid, practical and academic journal. okay, i got on a thanks very much for that. we'll keep you posted. now, a german court has ruled the youtube was wrong to remove content from a cove. it discussion panel accused of spreading this 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 reaction has varied door revolves around the youtube 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 covey. 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 you tube platform of censorship. will now talk about sensor so by you chew yet within an overly narrow opinion. corridor with respect to certain topics during the pandemic were found out that opinions that are not mainstream. the don't echo of what the government would like to hear. these opinions were quickly confined to a color branded as extreme with the removal. we now see how something is selectively targeted, dangerous. the thoughts on freedom of discussion took place and the judge rightly decided against you to apprehend it. the big question is, can you to possess 2 who sits there and says, what is right or wrong from

a medical standpoint? well build presented a very different message last month when arte deutsche 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 covert 19 pandemic. and about the german violence handling of it. basically, both sets of videos were removed from youtube for the same reason. but archie 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 off, 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 youtube has a long list of topics about the pandemic that it deems misinformation and the subject to removal. the platform argues that spreading such material poses, quote, a serious risk of egregious harm, and runs counter to advice by the world health organization. and we heard from our german professor who participated on the discussion panel that youtube removed. he says it's a matter of freedom of speech. thus, you don't need i, if something has been stamped with the word this information, fake news. in other words than youtube has the right even should remove it. the

only question is, who makes the decision? what is disinformation? then the next question, who are they and above all, are they independent? almost always not. these are all very dangerous developments and say that we have freedom of the press and freedom of speech. i'm very sorry, but it's not that simple. you need to understand the freedom of the press, even in our country is in great danger. because of course, any press depends on whether it can and how it can distribute is publication through platforms such as youtube and twitter. ext, her member of the british cabinets, is refusing to apologize after a parliamentary inquiry accused the government of gravely miss handling the coven pandemic. the extent that thousands of deaths could have been prevented. reporting from westminster. here sharia 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 cold corona, virus lessons learned to date and it finds that number 10, delaying the lockdown back in march of the 23rd and 2020 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 stop an apology, though i would have thought, what we'll know. we followed the scientific advice, which 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 something so precedent. it, 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 establish. and when this inquiry really began, now they looked at many key areas, including the preparedness, a for pandemic, social distancing, social care and the impact on certain communities. plus, of course, the vaccines as well. now a whole barrage of the criticisms really came out in this report, noting very quite big concerns, including access to p e as the government's much hailed track and tre system, which fundamentally was flawed. also suggesting at the start of the pandemic, boris johnson says that the care homes would not be affected. now, we know, in hindsight, they were actually the was effected loss. of course,

numerous criticisms about the travel concerns. whether or not boris johnson should have shut the borders 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 lock down. well, 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. bar. as johnson, the prime minister and his government have always maintained throughout this pandemic, the policy is guided by the data and 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 thing, there's 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 will, echoing knobby inquiry, conclusions no surprise to the founder of the cove at victim's campaign. group names, not numbers, are outlined to us why he thinks the fatality level is solely the government's fault. i've been saying to the last couple of years with my group name is not numbers that the government has done an absolutely terrible job. and this is what happens when you have leaders in charge a nurse to science and it 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 was 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 out people die a 100000 people today. however, the government want to go around. 3 you know, trade in contents in the future. i think this is a big society wake up. we've got to stop letting these born to rule. a 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 a serious pandemic. so i lost my grandfather and his best friend of a to years when the next day. so my family have, had our fash have changed it, but this, this isn't a personal and a, you know, some kind of emotional trauma. i think someone like doris johnson prime example of

what is wrong in british politics and has been running a bridge on the 6th 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 called 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 you without things still to come mixing it up in california. the toy stores why girls and boys should not be separated by law. just one of all stories after the break. ah oh, is your media a reflection of reality? ah,

in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? high selection, whole community. are you going the right way? where are you being led somewhere? which direction? what is true? what is great? in the world corrupted, you need to descend, ah, so join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. chinese bank and i've come for lending against entrepreneurs necessarily. they only wanna lend against real estates regulation. so this was created the biggest real estate babylon history. that's now collapsing. ah,

again, twitter thinks that it's school the answer for when online conversations get rowdy or potentially offensive. it's trialing a new feature that warns uses wanting to join a thread. the things could get quite heated, although some of the content flagged up so far in the trial run. it's left a few uses a bit confused. oh, wow. there are intense conversation about the weather, bro. seriously, this is the lamest one yet. to return what's intense about this conversation come believe this is happening on here under intense conversations. dear to it's a, i'm a generation x sir, is going to take more than an intense conversation to bother me. so how does it work? well, if 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. it's still not clear though, whether or not twitter scanning fool contentious subject matter all the actual content of a conversation. i talked to a couple of outspoken american broadcasters who aren't afraid to hold back for a robust but reasonable conversation about this sound like a noble idea that is doomed to fail. because if it's moderated by humans, it's open to claims of subjectivity. if it's algorithms, what we'll 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're 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 they're going to fulfill, be judged before any auto body is even taking place? absolutely. they miss 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 interaction is folly. the fact is we're guests there at somebody else's dinner table and they keep going hand grenades and the soup a know that the more engage 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 do 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 squelch conversation to put up warning flags and all that. meanwhile, what they physically do, or legislative leave do, or do it. policy is truly offensive and there's no warning for that. it just

happens. and then we all get caught, well, separately, facebook is feeling the pressure with ideas, swelling in the u. s. 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 was a bla 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 and frog in 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. placement was widely criticized for an antique and safety 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 to the platform was never moderated from the outside. many guys on capitol hill advanced upsetting the new a superstar whistleblower has found a perfect solution. user generated content is something that companies have less control over their 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 cat video or an offensive political mean. right now the algorithms are controlled by facebook and that 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 politic incense? it algorithm is controlled by the u. s. government much better. what a great way to spread american values? both the majority party to the 1st quarters 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 was the government guessing charge? imagine what a u. s. sensitive 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 defensive and ages. your friends graduation bridges. ok.

but as i have a look at the agenda, new tractor and the new way, sid to read a movie, i am your fabulous god mobile. no more inconvenient means and by didn't old man drugs because it pre approved by the us government. well, if that's what happens to social media, maybe we'll finally start living in the real world except your child's looking to pick out a new barbie doll in california toy store, you'll probably find it next to a g i. joe action figure. california has become the 1st us state to fort retailers, to display toys and other children's products and agenda neutral way. the new law put by the democrats doesn't completely forbid stoles from having individual sections for boys and girls. as long as they still provide a gender neutral area, it also affects only the state's largest retailers. those have got more than 500 employees. i'll to contribute to lauren chen says the law while apparently while

intention to 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 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 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, let your kid 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 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 off to me,

the same in washington next. and scotty know who's on calibrate moscow. thanks for watching. joining me for the next, i'll t global updates in half an hour. ah . well, the pandemic no, certainly no board is not the case. and you as a merge, we don't have with the door to the back seat. the whole world needs to take action to be ready is not a joke. people are judgment, common crisis with we can do better, we should be doing better. everyone is contributing each in their own way. but we also know that this crisis will not go on forever. the challenge is great to response has been massive. so many good people are helping us.