slave to bring me, as i've seen, you know, on wonderful scandals glue from polluted, but are one why do you think that us them, i mean, on i besides and wish to live by? ah, the british tabloids claim the russian spies stole vaccine secrets gets rivals digging deeper, calling out the story is inaccurate and opaque, but the sun is yet to clarify or apologize. the case of double standards rush, one of germany's most read newspapers, built late for the defense of a coven discussion panel, whose content was removed by youtube. but it's the same newspaper that mercilessly lashed ortiz, german new service period has some of the struggle with the video sharing site. british empties inquiry says the government lost its covert. pandemic response

leading to thousands of preventable deaths. but a top cabinet member refuses to apologize. came to scotland polish out of films, but we'll know we followed the scientific advice from fedex. we followed this on to the device with chess. and twitter tests a new feature to try and make conversations more healthy by warning, uses that things could get intense, all 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 that they can kick you off. they get put up signs. they can throw pumpkins at you, it's their lawn, they own it, they pay for it. ah, hello, good to have you with a slight from moscow. this is auntie internationals, world news, attend with me. call him right. first for a britain's mainstream press. he's taking aim at a tabloid,

which claims the russian spies stole the formula for moscow. sputnik v vaccine from the u. k. the sun story was widely picked up by other outlets, but now at least one rival has retracted its article and apologized. but the sun has not more on the story from egleston of deed 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 son's 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. his 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 contains false information. as an apology, we are happy to set the record straight and published the following statement from the russian direct investment fund. while the technology behind the vaccines, the astrazeneca, sputnik, we are indeed similar. astrazeneca is based on world tissues and will something that they got from chimpanzees while sputnik v is based on the human platform. so they are using very dear friend materials from 2 very different biological species

to well, to base their vaccine on. also, on top of that sputnik v was the 1st vaccine to be registered in the world and came well before astrazeneca, under 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 by splitting, he was actually well in the top 3, only surpassed by of the pipe pfizer and the medina jabs. 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 clone and to rip off. but, well, the facts show that it isn't, it isn't like that. and even on top of that sputnik re, developers are right now elaborating with astrazeneca to make their vaccine more efficient. well, the daily expresses so far, one just one outlet to well or to confront fear, if i may say so the son with this information and to 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 the british or security minister, minister of security when confronted when asked whether or not this report was true, he hesitated to back the sons claims have, listen, i'm can't comment, 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. i say german course has ruled 30 youtube was wrong to remove content from a covey discussion, accused of spreading dis information. the court decided to the c 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. no. 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 youtube. these were videos in which they challenged 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. will now talk about sensor sir, by youtube. yes. within an overly narrow opinion chord line of respect. chrysler doors, oprah i didn't tune the pandemic compounds al days, opinions are not mainstream. when i pad, don't dare camino come with li here. ladies. opinions 1000000 find to call around in the country and with the younger we now see how something is the last civilians . how get in danger settled on the freedom of discussions with nicholas and george rightly decided, it gives you to apprehend. it is a big question is how can you to help this truth little says what is right or wrong

as from a medical standpoint. well build presented a very different message last month when arte deutsche arte 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, 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 rollins handling of it. basically, both sets of videos were removed from youtube for the same reason. but artie deutsch is 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 you chip has a long list of topics about the pandemic that it deems misinformation and are subject to removal. the platform argues that spreading such material poses a serious risk of agree just harm and runs counter to advice by the world health organization. and we heard from a german professor who'd participated on the discussion panel that youtube removed . he says it's a matter of freedom of speech. thus, either of them is something has been stamped with the word this information, fake news. in other words,

than youtube has the right even should remove it. only question is who makes the decision of what is different formation? i then the next question, who are they and above all they independent or my school is not in. 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. did you need to understand the freedom of the press even in our country, is in great danger. because of course, at any press depends on whether it can and how it can distribute is publication through platforms such as youtube and twitter. you're missing. remember, the british cabinet refusing to apologize after a 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, while as an incredibly traumatic and triggering day for many, for instance, my best friend. he lost her mother during the pandemic to covert. and she is 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 at the lockdown. back in march of the 23rd in 2020 was one of the most important public failures in the history of the united kingdom was still at the government's handling of the pack dynamic 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 in apology that i would have thought, well, no, we followed the scientific advice with apology. we followed the scientific or vice . we protected the natures, we took the decisions based on the evidence reformers. but of course we've always heard with some things so unprecedented as the public there 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. p, the government, much held track and tre, system, which fundamentally 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 worst effected. plus, 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 key 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 pan danica 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 a pandemic 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 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 rapport, its aim is not to point the thing, those of blame, that is a quote with in this report. but some already say there is only one direction of blame to point that finger and that is squarely at the government. for the inquiry, conclusions, no surprise to the founder of the coping victims campaign group names, not numbers who outlined to us why he thinks the fatality level is so lead the government's fault not been sent to the last. 1 couple of years with the government and 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. they didn't follow the science, they didn't listen to the experts and they didn't other countries that warmer

argument. grace they didn't listen. i'm sure they didn't think about the light. they full about the money they for about the business contract and they didn't close the borders simply just letting our people die a 100000 people today on however, the government want to go around, 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 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 that serious on denny. 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 it, but this, this isn't a personal lender. you know, some kind of emotional trauma. i think someone like boris johnson prime example of

what is wrong in british politics and has been really a bridge on 6 the last 200 years. and i just feel it. 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 it without taste till to come mixing it up in california is toys, stools, white girls and boys should not be separated by law. it's just one of our stories after the break. ah ah, join me every thursday on the alex simon, sure. and i'll be speaking to guess in the world of politics, sport, business, i'm show business. i'll see you then. mm.

hello, driven by dreamer shapes bank. concur. some of those with dares sinks. we dare to ask a couple lending against entrepreneurs necessarily. they only want to lend against real estate speculation. so this was created the biggest real estate bubble in history. that's now collapsing.

ah, hello again, twitter thinks that it's got an answer for went online conversations get rowdy or potentially offensive. it's trying out a new feature that warns jesus wanting to join a threat. the things could get quite heated. although some of the content flagged up in the trial run has left a few uses a bit confused. ah, whoa, there are intense conversation about the weather bro. seriously, this is the last one, yet to return. what's intense about this conversation? come believe this is happening on here under intense conversations. dia 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 could be intense. it's still not clear though,

whether or not twitter scanning for contentious subject matter, all the actual contents 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 it. 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 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, 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 could 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, 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 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 to squelch conversation to put a warning flags and all that. meanwhile, what they physically do, or legislative leave do, or to a policy is truly offensive, and there's no warning for that. it just happens. and then we all get caught

separately. facebook 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 facebook was a blow, 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 is section $230.00. 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 antique and safety bias in recent years. facebook had purposely and routinely suppressed conservative story disadvantaging. conservative content, sensory, 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 upsetting the new 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 the 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, shaping your faith. 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 or the majority party to the furthest corners of the earth. people if symbolic 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. 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 defensive and ages. your friends graduation bridges. ok.

but as i have a look at the gender neutral actor and then you won't cinderella movie. i am your fabulous god. no more inconvenient means and bided an old man drinks and he calls 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. if your child's looking to pick out any barbie doll in the california toy store, you'll probably find it next to a g i. joe action figure. california is becoming the 1st us state to force retailers to display toys and on the 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 and girls. as long as they still provide a gender neutral area. it also affects only the state's largest retailers. those with more than 500 employees are to contribute to lauren chen says the law ball, 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, and 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. your 1st kaiser report of the week is on the way off to which i'll be back here to update you on the big develop and spread across here it i'll see for moscow.

ah ah ah ah ah, i max 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 gonna talk about this because i think for me it helps explain the situation out of china regarding ever 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 reflexively, reflex 70 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 of self reinforcing and tends toward this equilibrium.