well, so far, we choose to look so common ground ah, claims of online censorship, but to facebook parent company admits in court that the social networks 3rd party fact checks are nothing. in fact, more than opinions. jernace. lawmakers say that they are being treated like suspected terrorists suffrage. reveal the u. s. government run checks on these and some of the countries most sensitive database and an attack on the rule of law. that's what activists are calling the you case proposed changes to its human rights legislation, which would make it easier to depaul foreign criminals plus a french m e p tells our t to stop broadcasting, claiming that there are enough useful idiots in europe to spread the kremlin selection propaganda on the ukraine crisis.

ah, good morning. great to see you. and you are watching course arti international in a landmark court case, matter, also known as facebook. 2 point, oh, has admitted that it's 3rd party fact checks are simply opinions. revelations came during a legal battle, a journalist has brought against the social media giant accusing it of defamation after his post were flagged as being misleading. and he, saskia taylor has the story. turns out the famous fact checkers who are busy labeling things false party, false misleading. i've actually been a bit loose with well, the facts. facebook yet again found itself in court. this time up against a journalist, he didn't like the day slapped a partly full sticker on one of his post. so he sued for defamation. i'm because facebook where he spent millions of dollars on legal fees over the years and got

creative this time and claimed that front checkers don't decide what's false. so not based on fact, what a ridiculous idea, but on their opinion, hence the title, fact checkup. and because opinion in america is sacred, you can't sue it. it's a very, very nifty loophole. but just to really escape any liability whatsoever. facebook double down on how it gives it fact checkers. a very long leash, though miss identifies potential misinformation, for fact checkers to review and rate. it leaves the ultimate determination where the information is false or misleading to the fact checkers. and though mets as designed is platforms so that fact checker ratings appear next the content that the fact checkers have reviewed and rated. it does not contribute to the substance of those ratings. now you won't find any of these details in the giant fact checking section on facebook talk. com. instead you'll learn about how they interview sources and consult data. look for facts, you know,

to really drive home the point about how it's all based on opinion. i think some of it's 3000000000 uses, worldwide, one, sorry, pleased. after all, many of them had probably used these facts when arguing with their friends. and now it's turned out they would just quoting some random person's opinion. i've been embarrassing railing so that i campaigning for facebook not to be let off the hook court filing. facebook admits its fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that it's fact checks are not really facts at all, but merely opinion assertions also by facebook claim and it's labels constitute opinions than doesn't that make it a publisher. facebook, your opinion piece is not exempt from being fact checked, even when they are clearly labeled as o peds or editorials. also, facebook are fact check labels cannot be false or defamatory because they consist sheet protected opinion, even though we present them. as fact, my question though is, what does facebook need these opinionated fact checkers for anyway, after all,

over the years, it's proved, it's committed to free speech. it is giving people a voice, especially donald trump. it's dedicated to openness, transparency, and of course, democracy. i mean, it says all the time your democracy can't tolerate the speech of people. i'm not sure what kind of democracy it is. i do believe in giving people more access to information and more access to connect with one another and not reserving those as tools for some small number of ally people. i don't feel comfortable at all saying they don't get to have a voice because i don't agree what they said, our ability to know what is misinformation is itself in question and i think reasonably so fact checkers. facebook favorite friends protecting it from defamation, setting it free for accountability, someone to hide behind and times of trouble, but most importantly, always ready to get their opinion. facebook has found themselves back against the wall and if they try to cling to the idea that they are fact checking in court, they're going to lose. and not only is it gonna cost them big time,

but it's an open the door to a flood of similar lawsuits in the near future. and it could be more than they can handle. i think they're hoping that by admitting that fact, jack just means opinion jack, when facebook puts a label on there, hoping to get out of this lawsuit without harm. and then just sink the story into the daily fountain of news events and hope people forget about it. in due time and in the, in the future, you'll see changes in their labels. they'll stop using the word fact and they'll come up with some other way to express it where they still exercise their dictatorship right to control speech on their platform. but it won't be a false presentation like the word fact jack is false. now on another front, sternly, self fighting against government surveillance after it was revealed us homeland security secretly obtained information about reporters congress members, possible even its own staff using databases set up to track international terrorists the associated press. his reporter was one of those who was targeted is

now demanding answers. we are deeply concerned about this apparent abusive power. this appears to be an example of journalists being targeted for simply doing their jobs, which is a violation of the 1st amendment of the center of the uproar. a special unit inside customs and border protection is called counter network division. reportedly gather daytron 20 journalists using sensitive databases. the revelations prompted condemnation not only from media workers, but also lawmakers if true, this abuse of government surveillance powers to target journalists, elected officials, and their staff is deeply disturbing if multiple government agencies were aware of this conduct. and took no action to stop it. there needs to be serious consequences for every official involved and department of homeland security and the justice department must explain what actions they are taking to prevent this unacceptable conduct in the future. or the department of homeland security insist that it is

a deeply committed to ensure in the protection of 1st amendment rights, namely freedom of speech. and the press journalist and commentator chadwick moore told us that americans have actually long been spied on by their governments deeply shocking and chilling, actually to put it more accurately. but this is also nothing really new. and this is something that transcends administration that transcend democrat and republican administration. and there's absolutely no reason why someone from a government should be looking at your bank records, who you're emailing your travel records. it goes on a mentally against everything that this country stands floor that's in our constitution. so it doesn't matter if you have something to hide or not. it's wrong and it should be a legal probably is a legal and it's not preventative, of the values of this country and the people in journalists are being the themes. and this is all being funded by our government. it seems like congress should be able to do something about it. they won't,

you put up quotes and congress people who are saying are deeply concerned. i don't think anything will happen. might be, i don't know if it's too far to say that maybe because these agencies have every bit of dirt. they cannot members of congress, maybe congress people are frightened to come out against these agencies in the delta services in any kind of meaningful way that's possible. but congress could actually do something, but they haven't, and i don't think they were rampant west in speculation about a possible russian invasion of ukraine. his problem to the french emmy fee to tell this tongue party to shut up shop in europe, saying that there is no need for artes alleged propaganda. as there are enough, quote useful idiots about to spread the kremlin message with more on those claims and on who made them. his ortiz corresponded to paris, shall the duke escape? this message seems to be very much in seeing what we're hearing from many you politicians who are keen at the moment to show that she's against russia. with one

m p, suggesting that she said she wants to say the russian government a lot of money. this is natalie. so who's also a member of a manual macaroni on the move party hearing france. and this is somebody who would probably describe herself as being sourly european to the core and anti russian. in fact, in the last few years, she has ramped up the anti russian sentiment and use that as a mechanism to push forward her agenda that you need to have better defense capabilities and possibly even an u all me. now on the one hand natalie was who must be somebody who would say that she defends the idea of freedom of speech in expression to the core. but it does seem as if that only extends to the type of freedom of speech that she agrees with do now go say i would like to give a piece of advice to russia today. you can save money and clothes your offices in

europe. your pin politicians are doing you work perfectly well by systematically spreading, traveling propaganda. and i would like to tell you, try not to worry because these useful idiots remain in minority in europe, and they must absolutely remaining minority. so apart from and actually just a quick fact check k for madame was the name of the chandler archie. no, russia today, so apart from the fact that she isn't happy with what she sees as politicians from the left and the right side of the political spectrum in europe saying that russia has a right to a point to view that russia has a right to question when ne, 2 doesn't keep its promises, that begs a question. does she think that if need to, rene eggs on commitment. so it's made that, that should be swept under the carpet. and all of this comes at a time when the e was ramping up. the threats against russia include increasing sanctions against individuals and it claims that the country is primed to make an invasion of ukraine

. now for weeks, if not months, there has been speculation and allegations that russia is a massing troops on its border, but not much. if anything said about the fact that ukraine has also been amassing many troops on its border to this also comes at a time when nato is suggesting, once again, that ukraine could be about to ascend to the alliance. something that russia has warned time and time again that it sees as being a clear threat. moscow has also accused cape of not just a massive troops on its border, but also beefing up its army with modern technology. and it says that key ev, at the moment, is purposely exacerbating the situation to person to try to move as for the other round of france towards russia, warnings or threats, we absolutely understand the position and there is no need to repeat it 10 times. what we would like their position to be more balanced. if we're talking about the need for the escalation, ukraine, we want to see calls for kia to stop the provocative activities on the demarcation

line. no other hawks are soaring and squawking about this idea that there is a war brewing right now. some you leaders a counseling at that that could be a self fulfilling prophecy. and that comes with a big warning, particularly from french president, a manual mac one who says that that could come to pass if it's something that we keep speculating about. and he said that the primary goal right now should be to avoid any unnecessary tensions. it seems that natalie luez though, didn't get that memo. the british government is planning to reform its human rights laws by adding what the you case just to secretaries calling a healthy dose of common sense. the proposed changes paid the way for the deportation of foreign criminals, but have been pummeled by the opposition and by rights activists. this bill represents the biggest legal assault on international refugee law ever seen in the

u. k. a future, whether u. k. brakes is international law, obligations and out of human rights protections is a very bad future. these conservative governments tags on the rule of floor must stop. the human rights ad does not stop as deport and serious criminals threatening to weaken people's ability to challenge the government. just because the core sometimes rule against you is the acts of dictators and despots. not democrats. the proposed changes would apply to the u. k. human rights say it's been in place for 20 years already. among other things, the conservative government holds great powers. the curb foreign criminals ability to appeal deportation and to give british cools more flexibility and interpreting rulings from the european court of human rights as she returns the host devante is going underground show to my colleague in and neal, why the timing of the proposals could be significant view is around the world. they're going to say, you know, i, this is just coming days after

a british court accused of corruption by some are overturned to previous judgment. that the julian assange, of wickedness could be said to the united states, to raise a 175 years for revealing war crimes. so why, why so soon after we learn of that judgment and his stroke in a high security prison? do we suddenly hear a reform or a consultation document on the human rights act, which will, which will and on the table is a reform of you european human rights at court affiliation of the british system. one of the reform it's one of the main points of it is that the u. k. wants to make it easier to, to port foreign offenders. that's something that a lot of conservative voters have been asking for for many years. why should that one be a problem? the numbers of foreign offenders that have been coming to britain. if you look at statistics, our miniscule in terms of over turning the entire human rights act. one good,

maybe i say that britain is, are acting quite intelligently about this britain. after all knows exactly the scale of the refugee crisis from countries that it participated in the annual bombarding of it was britain, of course, that destroyed africa's riches per capita. country libya on the mediterranean, there were thousands untold thousands of drowned, and course england and france were involved in that. we have refugees drowning in the english channel. and of course, england and britain was responsible partly for the aerial bombardment of iraq, afghanistan of syria, that britain knows where and why refugees are seeking solace and asylum from countries whose economies and whose entire populations have been destroyed. well as to the denmark now f, as

a former immigration minister there has been sentenced to 2 months in prison for legally separating refugee couples. in 2016 ingles storybook says that the move was made to protect child brides and that she has no regrets yet manet, accuracy ad. yeah, i can only see that i have very, very surprised by despair deck and it is as it were, the only scenario i had not prepared for it before because i thought it was completely unrealistic. but here we are, and i take my punishment and i do it without bending my neck. oh no. oh boy, agnes store burger served as the immigration minister of denmark from 2015 through to 2019 and the height of the migrant crisis. she gave orders for couples to be separated when the female partner was under age, some of those partners were as young as 15. well below denmark's legal marriage, age 80 danish court, though ruled the decision, was unlawful as it was made without consideration for individual circumstances. and ruled that stolberg had breached her responsibilities. as a minister,

we put this whole issue up for debate. to me, nobody is above the law, is as simple as that. and she has been only sentence for 2 months, not for 2 years. and we also know that she will not go to the present, she maybe get a strap on, on her leg, you know, and that is, that would be that i think the lessons learned says up a say there is a lack of proportion, i say, on behalf of the davis minister, also acting on behalf of the tool because we're talking about $23.00 people. so i don't think that sentence, most of the girls who are in these 24 cases give are 1617. so they were not child. right. like 5 years, 6 years, 7 years and more girls were already married with these campers and to separate those people. i think that if she wanted to do something humana,

she should have gone to the court and knock some competent expert who had given her some good advice. but she didn't do that. i think they didn't touch it or they sent us. there is a good faith trying to protect the di, describe why she might go slightly wrong about my food and how i got members also having a common time since syria which is contributing to so many of them coming to denmark didn't know that, that they didn't know what the damage became as a silent seeker hope, they know the last of the land they were running for their lives. do civil war in the country. they were seeking asylum somewhere and it came to to denmark. and if she was so worried about them, then she the minister would have been something more humane. talk to them and explain to them. well, i think if you go by what she said,

she said she is defending daily. he's. i'm attaching child bar it is that the mentor one b one, do you you suggest the mentor of subjecting those more people who are seeking asylum and, and garland and the minister is subjecting them to come unbearable regression. and that is, i think, personally for me is absolutely tighter but so the main reason people come from cherry, i choose to place a demo. can you try is the all for economic sanctions, which literally a nightmare. so everlastingly today we're beecher, i'm the, i'm excited. so maybe a little bit more powerful because john tom is on his facing claims of safety. mismanagement, have to 6 of his warehouse work is in illinois died during a tornado. busy on that story to the breaking

a ah i as in

ah, there's things we dare to ask. oh, oh, come back. consumer prices are hitting new highs in the united states with inflation reaching a for decade peak earlier this year. recent media advice for americans to spend spend, spend before the savings de valuable that hasn't gone down very well, especially among already strapped for cash consumers to scale it. more print takes a closer look was price is on almost all goods and services rising. some media have

come up with some advice that isn't going down too well. they say copy inflation ravaged argentina and simply blow all your money before it evaporates. so bloomberg offers us to spend more. that's as consumer inflation costs of jumped 6.8 percent the highest and 41 years. no doubt, many have pointed out how disconnected from reality such a solution is. in the weimer republic, the price change so fast. the customers bought beer for the whole day in the morning. it's coming, or the fed can stop printing trillions of dollars, making us all poor in the process with the decline and currency that also works. yeah, you definitely should start live in hand to mouth because of temporary blip in inflation . it's not the only example in a recent washington post article, a leading columnist aptly suggested. not expecting very much, rather than leaving constantly on the verge of throw in a fit, and rescan taken it out on the la welm service,

struggling shall pony later i haven't delivered it people. we do ourselves a favor by consciously lowering expectations. a recent article from locks recommended reducing holiday requests in order to not feel the crunch of bide nomics many c biden's policies as being directly to blame. while an infusion of treasury bonds may have been necessary at the beginning of the pandemic. the strategy of printing money seems to be backfiring. everything costs more grocery stores. um, pretty much everything universally costs more. everything its got up gas. ah, food. everything was small, you know, black home business owner and all the prices are my products, have a coffee shop in brooklyn, in prime grand coffee and like all the, all the beans. oh, more expensive. and its harder to get like even little products like napkins and cups and oil stuff. so it's kind of bad. you know, joe biden seems bored of explaining how he sees it, not too interested in defending his action. if we were all going out and have lunch

together and i said, let's ask whoever over the next table, no matter how, what restaurant we're in, haven't, haven't explained the supply chain to us. you can understand what we're talking about. now, at this point, 60 percent of americans blame joe biden for the crisis, but mainstream media seems to disagree and tell them they should blame themselves, not the people leading the country. there's nothing that upsets american voters more than having to pay for ever higher prices that are going up dramatically. vitamins efficient can try to blame the energy companies and private. it's all they want, but it's all happening for his watch. and i expect that the mac rats are going to pay a very serious price for this. and the next election, if we make it that long, we don't know what inflation is going to be at. by that time, i'm very much afraid that, that we're going to be facing a reckoning of,

of without any kind of historical precedent. and anybody lifetimes. american e commerce, john, amazon could be in trouble of questionable tornado preparations. 6 of its workers were killed when disaster hit one of its warehouses in illinois last week, a federal investigation into workplace safety has been opened while employees accuse the company failing to provide enough training on how to act, doing it till nato incident. one of the victims apparently notified his girlfriend that the company wouldn't let him leave. the woman said she received the text that is 16 minutes before the storm head, which might have been enough time for him to get home to safety. it was the last text she received from him. well, amazon says that it is assisting with the investigation and that training is mandatory in its facilities. critics though say that not enough time is spent on preparing workers, especially during the busy holiday season. the company has promised to donate

a $1000000.00 to help rebuild the devastated local community. the school compensated nika how says, though, that amazon should have them on the amazon managerial staff at edward vill, illinois knew that the tornadoes were coming, because, well, they admitted they got alerts through various apparatus is like text messages and phone calls and even more so even more so they had advance notice, not that day, but days ahead. it also probably means that the amazon manager of the staff should have been taking precaution, given that the national weather service made it perfectly clear that there was a violent storm system for me. in that area, now they did not close the facility that day. they didn't even close facility early that day. this seems to be emblematic of a major problem that has been consistent with amazon working conditions seem to be unbearable for amazon workers to the point where they are now banding together

across the world to combat them. this is not a one off situation. they were given a couple of days notice about the volunteer needles in the area base, not hours days. they could have close early. they could have, as they could have made an escape plan and say, hey workers, where are you and the proximity to amazon facility? in this particular case, larry was only 13 minutes away in an area that didn't get hit hard according to his girlfriend. and why do they keep the facilities open exactly to what to get the packages where they need to get to on time that's. that's what a life was law for. that's what people were put in danger for people. larry virgin, partner of 13 years with his girlfriend, father of for lost his life for the amazon. could get you your packages on time, instead of

a day or 2 late and found this out terms like the queen's english and brits. and now apparently deemed to be discriminatory according to a guide issued by the british council, which is his employees to avoid using such language introducing the new non discriminatory language guide. the british council edition brits don't use when referring to people from the u. k. makes fellows from northern ireland for you. excluded guides associated with men and can be perceived as excluding women. time to bring back. good old ladies and gentlemen, native english speaker relates to countries like the u. k. the usa and australia and discriminates against others. not so native speakers from other

countries rejoice. developing countries use lower income country, middle income, country, fragile and conflict affected faith. feel free to be more specific. british english or queens english implies that these varieties of english are more correct or of greater importance than others. too bad, nobody but the brits really thought like that. oh wait. what about the british counsel? better start looking for another name before it cancels itself. not set you up to date watching artie. i'm sure you knew that already, but still appreciate your company. if you can stick around, i'll be back in hoffman. mm. a

nurse for is your media a reflection of reality? ah, in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation for community. are you going the right way? where are you being led to some with direct? what is true, what is faith? in the world corrupted, you need to descend a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows.