facebook knows a huge amount about you today like that your question about on of us on facebook is not accurate for what's happening and we still see these harms. but the third thing is the real problem is systems of amplification. like this is not a problem about individuals. it's about having a system that prioritizes and mass distributes divisive polarizing extend content, and that in situations where you just limit content -- not limit, when you just show more content from your family and friends you get for free safer, less dangerous content. i think that's the greater solution. >> so very finally just in terms of anonymity for this report, then you think we should be focusing more on the proliferation of content to larger numbers than we should on anonymity, the source of the content pgh yes. the much more scalable effective solution is thinking about how its content is distributed on this platforms, one of the vices of algorithms, what are they distributing more of an concentration. like people getting pounded with that content. for example, this happens on both sides, both peop

but we should wonder, whether facebook is just fundamentally evil? is facebook evil? >> i cannot see into the hearts of men. i think there is a real thing of -- good people, and facebook is full of kind, conscientious, empathetic people -- >> you have to leave -- >> but good people with bad incentives are led to bad actions. people are willing to look the other way. >> the number of athletes in history -- >> >> yes, yes -- >> and evil, maybe that's an overly more lipstick word. but the way that some of the outcomes of its behavior, they are evil. >> i think it's -- >> malevolent? >> malevolent complies intent. but there is a pattern of inadequacy, being able to not acknowledge its power. that hides the difference. children are not adults. they believe in flatness. and so i think that is negligence? and it is ignorance. but i cannot see into their hearts. >> i respect your desire to answer the question in your own way. but given the evidence, i think a reasonable person seeing the consequences of the company's behavior, would have to conclude, the way they are performi

plus, the facebook files, shocking revelations from a whistleblower and former facebook employee who went to capitol hill to accuse the company of prioritizing profits over people. and a key early investor in facebook speaks out, reid hoffman tells me he is disappointed in the social network and immediately gets a call from mark zuckerberg. all of that coming up. facebook doubling down on the metaverse, so much so the company calls itself meta-. we spoke to the vice president of the global business group. >> we don't see it as a risk, we are coming off the company and the excitement of the company is very real and meta captures where our company is going and the future that we want to build but our mission has not changed. meta's focus is around building the metaverse, continuing to let people connect, to grow businesses in the way they have with the facebook family of apps over the almost 20 years that we have been going. it really reflects and also solves the confusion that there has been caused by a company named sharing the same name as our biggest app. facebook started as a sing

i used to work at facebook. i became a whistleblower at half a year ago in a pro i at facebook, i spent my spare time catching foreign national governments who are you who are using fake accounts to mislead and repress their citizen ident, with chris on the arm miano. but i am here to provide context based on my knowledge at facebook and the richard the best to the wrecking your people in the lawsuit and to oh, the people of me ammo in the struggle against the repressive military regime. i say thank you for bringing your inside and knowledge. if you have questions for any of our guests now it's a time to ask them. if you're a new chief, jumping to the comment section, be part of today's program. jason, i'm going to start on my laptop, but this seems like an all day. shes claim we're hinge our facebook claim. lawyers representing the ringer, people around the world, including those living refugee camps in bangladesh, have launched, coordinated legal actions against facebook, public charges by the me and my regime

is facebook evil? >> i cannot -- i think there's a real thing of people, good people, facebook is over mumbling full of conscientious, kind, empathetic people, good people who are embedded in systems with bad incentives are led to bad actions. there's a real pattern of people who are willing to look the other way, are promoted more than people who raise alarms. >> we know where that leads in history, don't we? so could we compromise that is not evil, maybe that's a moralistic word, but the way that some of the outcomes of facebook's behavior is evil? >> i think it's negligence. >> malevolent? >> malevolent has implied content and i cannot stand to the hearts of men but at least there is a pattern of inadequacy that facebook is unwilling to acknowledge its own power pickett believes in a world of flatness which hides the difference like children are not adults, right? they believe in flatness and it won't accept the consequences of their actions. i think that is negligence and it is ignorance, but i can

i used to work at facebook. i became a whistleblower that half a year ago in a pro and i at facebook i spent my spare time catching for in that know governments who are you who are using fake accounts to mislead and repress their citizen ident wordpress on the army imo. but i am here to provide context based on my knowledge at facebook and the which of the best to the writing your people in the lawsuit and to all the people have miano in the struggle against the repressive military regime . i say thank you for bringing your inside and knowledge if you have questions for any of our guest now at a time to ask them if you're a new chief, jumping to the comment section, be part of today's program. jason, i'm going to start on my laptop, but this seems like an all day. shes claim we're hing our facebook claim. lawyers representing the ringer, people around the world. closing those living in refugee camps in bangladesh have launched a coordinated legal actions against facebook. public id by the me and my regime and ex

i used to work at facebook. i became a whistleblower a half a year ago in a pro and i at facebook i spent my spare time catching for in that no governments who are you who are using fake accounts to mislead and repress their citizen ident wordpress on the army ammo. but i am here to provide context based on my knowledge at facebook, and they, which are the best to the wrecking your people in their lawsuit and to all the people of miano in the struggle against the repressive military regime. i say thank you for bringing your inside our knowledge. if you have questions for any of our guests now as a time to ask them if you're a new chief, jumping to the comment section, be part of today's program. jason, i'm going to start on my laptop, but this seems like an all day. shes claim we're hing our facebook claim. lawyers representing the ringer, people around the world coating those living in refugee camps in bangladesh have launched a coordinated legal actions against facebook. pub attracted by the me and my regime a

also by facebook claim in its 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 or fax labels can not be false or to pharma tree because they constitute, protects that opinion, even though we present them, as fact. we don't facebook's got a whole section on its website dedicated to fact check, isn't it ready, does salad. while you know, a 2 organizations watching and 60 languages fighting lies together. it's a rigorous process and that process involves identifying the problematic post and then reviewing it. and apparently, and want to decide whether this post is actually or not, it goes straight to the source it interviews, people at consults, data and then on the basis of these findings that determines whether that content needs to be filtered or allowed to circulate. so it really does sound like a thorough a scientific process, no way in all of that. and bleeping actual lives of tool through that was a lot of it is absolutely no

, 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 clement, 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 op eds or editorials. also, facebook, i'll fact check labels cannot be false or defamatory because they concede she 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 proved it's committed to free speech. it loves giving people a voice, especially donald trump is 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 anxious to connect with one

and i at facebook. i spent my spare time catching for in that know, governments who are you, who are using fake accounts to mislead and repress their citizen ident. we're chris on the army ammo, but i am here to provide context based on my knowledge at facebook and the which of the best to the writing your people in their lawsuit and to all the people have miano in the struggle against the repressive military regime. i say thank you for bringing your inside and knowledge if you have questions for any of our guests now at a time to ask them if you're a new chief, jumping to the comment section, be part of today's program. jason, i'm going to start on my laptop. this seems like an all day. shes claim we're hing our facebook claim. lawyers representing the ringer, people around the world coating those living in refugee camps in bangladesh have launched a coordinated legal actions against facebook. public traded by the me and my regime and extremist dividends against the rehab. get people. this is a huge la

, facebook or formerly facebook. now meta has been really played by scandals for years, but especially this year i and the whistleblower francis house actually called for him to step down and really allow facebook or meta, pardon me to move on from the sort of assorted history they've had right now. we saw many founders of these major big tech companies stepping down this year, also recent years. we, you know, amazon, twitter, microsoft zuckerberg is really the main founder still leading his company and a, based on his company's track record. there's not a lot of reason to think it won't be the same going forward with the multiverse. so bit of a last man standing vibe there. now at the top of the show, christy, we talked about e laws in the making. how could you regulation shape, tech players in europe? right, well this regulation has been moving along was surprising. the surprising speed was really just announced just a little over a year ago, and we're already, i'm, as you said, going to be heading into official ne

facebook will tell you that means they can't— facebook will tell you that means they can't give you data, this is not true — they can't give you data, this is not true. , , ., , they can't give you data, this is not true. , i. , ., ., not true. let me put you up to what mark zuckerberg _ not true. let me put you up to what mark zuckerberg said _ not true. let me put you up to what mark zuckerberg said in _ not true. let me put you up to what mark zuckerberg said in response. i not true. let me put you up to what l mark zuckerberg said in response. he says i think most of us presuming facebook employees don't recognise the picture of the company being painted and he said at the heart of these activations is this idea we prioritise profit of a safety and well—being. that'sjust prioritise profit of a safety and well—being. that's just not true. we well-being. that's 'ust not true. we are well—being. that'sjust not true. - are looking really closely at what is publicly available right now from francis plus plus testimony and we are looking at that publicly available information but i

in the landmark a court case, facebook has admitted that it's 3rd parks. a 3rd party fact checks are just opinions. the revelations came during a legal battle that journalists are bringing against the social media giant. they're accusing it of defamation, after posts related to their work were flagged as false or t. saskia taylor takes up the story. well, facebook might have put itself a new name matter, but it seems that it's up to its old trick. the age old question of whether it's a free, an open platform or in fact, a giant tech company that is just censoring anyone. it does like, has yet to again, re and merge. now the latest revelations transpired from a neural suit filed against facebook by john list, and that's because one of his posts from about last year's california wildfires was fact checked and labeled pot default. so he said for defamation, as you said, but the social media platforms response has been to lift up the towns and say when it can't be defamation, because these flat check has what parenting out to rid the world of nasty misinformat

what is facebook saying about this? >> facebook will always tout and promote that they have all these moderators, all this artificial intelligence that can catch these ads which are clear violations of their rules. but they didn't catch then until cnn brought them to their attention. the ad about comparing the u.s. government crackdown and restrictions on covid to the nazi regime, and calling the vaccines a holocaust tool, those two ads got taken down, facebook said, after cnn brought it to their attention, but that ad, i don't know if we can show it again, make hanging traitors great again, that's still up on the platform. that's not seemingly against facebook's rules, even though this is just months after we saw gallows outside the capitol and people chanting hang mike pence. >> some of these were run on instagram, which is owned by facebook. the c.o.o. of instagram is going to be testifying. do you know what we'll hear from him? >> we'll probably hear something along the lines of we know we have the issues, we have s

, 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 clement, 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 op eds or editorials. also, facebook are fact check labels cannot be false or defamatory because they can see she 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 proved it's committed to free speech. it loves giving people a voice, especially don't come. 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

plus, the facebook files, shocking revelations from a whistleblower and former facebook employee who went to capitol hill to accuse the company of prioritizing profits over people. and a key early investor in facebook speaks out, reid hoffman tells me he is disappointed in the social network and meet of the gets a call from mark zuckerberg. all of that coming up. facebook doubling down on the metaverse, so much so the company calls itself meta-. we spoke to the vice president of the global business group. >> we don't see it as a risk, we are coming off the company and the excitement of the company is very real and meta kept is where our company is going and the future that we want to build but our mission has not changed. our focus is around building the metaverse, continuing to let people connect, to grow businesses in the way they have with the facebook family of apps over the almost 20 years that we have been going. it really but flex and also solve the confusion that there has been caused by a company named sharing the same name as our biggest app. facebook started as a single ap

what is facebook saying about these? >> so facebook will always out the and promote that they have all these moderator, all this artificial intelligence that can catch these adds which are clear violations of their rules. but they didn't catch them until cnn brought them to their attention. the ad about comparing the u.s. crackdown and restrictions on covid to the nazi regime and calling the vaccines a holocaust tool, those two ads got taken down facebook said after cnn brought it to their attention. but that ad, i don't know if we can show it again, "make hanging traitors great again," that's still up on the platform. that's seemingly not against facebook's rules, even though this is just months after we saw gallows outside the capitol and people chanting "hang mike pence." >> some of these were run on instagram, which is on the other hand by facebook. the ceo i think of instagram is going to be testifying. do we know what to expect from him? >> we're probably going to hearing? along the lines of we know we have some is

emily: the facebook files have revealed some of the ills of social media that facebook new internally, but from the public perspective, it appears you did not act on. that instagram was toxic to teens, only 5% of hateful content was taken down. is facebook taking a look in the mirror by now were running away or are you committing to double down and take some accountability for these issues? nicola: what we are seeing is a court needed effort to selectively use leaked documents to paint a false picture of our company and it does not in any way reflect the company that i know when that i am passionate about and that i love working about. i am actually really proud of our record navigating these complicated trade-offs involved in operating in the services of scale. look at the actions we have taken, look at the considerable investments we have made. if i take this year, we are on track to spend more than $5 billion on safety and security. i think that is more than any other tech company even if you adjust to scale. the fact that we have 40,000 people working on safety, working on securit

, facebook admits its fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that it's fact checks are not really fact checks at all, but merely opinion assertions also by facebook clement, its labels constitute opinions than doesn't that make it a publisher. facebook, your opinion piece is not exempt from being fact checks even when they are clearly labeled as op eds or editorials. also, facebook are fact check labels can not 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 wi

ah, so facebook's parent company admits in courts that it's 3rd party fact checks are nothing more than opinions fueling further allegations of bias and censorship on social media. journalist and lawmakers say that they're being treated like suspected terrorists. southwest reveal the u. s. government run checks on the music, some of the country's most sensitive database and jailed for trying to protect young girls, denmark's and former immigration minister against 2 months behind bars for separating refugee child wife from that as if she were so worried about them, then she put the minister would have been something more humane. ready, talking about 23 feet or so. i have done with our achievements junctions and with the us inflation re setting new records, americans are being advised by the media to splash their savings before they d value. further into that has angered still ready, harder pretty much everything universally cost smart. there's hard it again, like even little products like napkins and cups and all those stuff. so it's kind of bad. ah hi that very good morning to you. gre

therefore, facebook themselves are not venturing one line of ideology over another, but what a facebook failed to mention that they are ok, but these fact checkers having their own opinions. it's all in the details and we will discuss. and during this latest outbreak of a deadly weather across the mid south, did companies choose to put profit over the safety of their workers. we will give you all the details and discuss with our expert panel. and pers, andrew has tried again to have complaints of abuse against him dismiss, or at the very least field we will let you know everything that's happened up until now and they just plain mexico tribe. i'm a guy now hughes in the stores and more on today's news views youth right here on our to america. let's get started. ah, you're going to be with you today. you know, we all know major changes that were made to facebook. now, re branded as mehta and back in 2016 after donald trump won the presidential election. all of these started, it began implementing what it calls, fact checkers as well. but now after a major lawsuit with a cable tv news hos

it caused a major strained relations between moscow and berlin. facebook parent company admits in court that it's 3rd party fact check said nothing more than opinions. it is fueling for the allegations of bias and censorship of process social media jail to try to protect young girl. denmark's act immigration minister gets 2 months behind bars for separating refugee child wives from their husband. if she was so worried about and then she diminished her, would have been something more humane reading, talking about trying to achieve 3 people. so i don't think it r chipmunks junctions. ah, well, an awful lot of new stories coming into while t international it most go today. it's a busy wednesday. welcome to your new a political decision, not back with any solid evidence will. that is how russia's ambassador to germany has dismissed the conviction of a russian national for the alleged state sponsored killing of a man in berlin. back in 2019, the court ruled the mode. it was carried out on moscow's orders. lot is peter oliver picks up the story lacorte in berlin its sentence, they russian nat

ah ah, this alice help headlines here on our team. facebook. some parent company admits in court that it's a 3rd party fact check. so nothing more than opinions is fueling further allegations of bias and censorship across social media. jail to trying to protect young girls, denmark's x immigration minister gets 2 months behind bars for separating a refugee child wife's from their husband. if she was so worried about them, then she the diminished have would have been something more humane. ready? talking about 23 people, so i don't think it is that are mumps, shut it with us inflation rates setting new records, americans are being advised by the media to flash their savings before they deem value any further. it's a tip that i'm good. the already hot up pretty much everything universally cost smart. that's harder to get like even little products, like napkins and cups and all that stuff. so it's kind of bad. ah, i live in more than 100 countries worldwide. this is auntie international. i'm rural, re sushi and moscow on this wednesday in a very w

ah, you are more analysis and insight into the facebook revelations. it's just a click away for that and plenty more. besides head over to r t dot com. now the author of harry potter j. k. rowling has landed herself in hot water. she is infuriated the transgender community by criticizing the police in scotland, who allowed rape suspects to identify as women. that's even if they haven't legally or physically changed their gender saying only that their female rollin channels. george orwell is novel. 1984 on twitter to make her point. where is peace? freedom of slavery, ignorance, his strength, the penis thing to vigil her aim to you is a woman. many people have shared rawlings concerns saying that the new approach will clearly distort crime statistics and thereby render them useless. but the authors faced a heavy backlash from activists and people on social media for her views. vast majority of sexual souls are committed by men who don't identify as anything other than men. perhaps you might consider using your public profile to come by this. instead, yo

busy nazi germany, facebook admits in court that it's 3rd party fact check. so nothing more than opinion. it's a fueling allegations of bias and censorship across social media. the pentagon says it won't hold anyone liable for a botched drones strike an afghan, his dog that killed 10 civilians including 7 children, one former u. s. military drone pilot told us of his frustration over that decision to see that nothing has changed, even when it's blatantly out in front of everyone's face, how we operate and no one is being held accountable. like we've been talking about this for 10 years now. ah . all right, 7 o'clock on tuesday night, here at moscow. this is auntie international. a very welcome to year the u. k. has started to record all mcmullin cases in the thousands, the very it now accounting for 20 percent of old infections in the country and nearly 50 percent in london. prime minister has tried to get ahead of the way by bringing in his plan b. that entailing a new restrictions on accelerated rollouts of boosters. however, even members of his own party,

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 op eds or editorials. also, facebook are fact check labels can not be false or defamatory, because they concede 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 loves 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 elite people. i don't feel comfortable at all saying they don't get to hav

now you won't find any of these details in the giant fact checking section on facebook dot com. instead, you'll learn about how they interview thought, says and consult data and 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 users worldwide, one, sorry, pleased. after all, many of them had probably used these fact excellent. akin with their friends. and now it's turned out they were just quoting some random person's opinion about embarrassing railing, so that campaigning for face may not 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 fat checks at all, but merely opinion assertions also by facebook claim in its 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 op eds or editorials. also, facebook are fact check labels can not be false or defamatory because they consist sheet pro

. facebook admits its fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that it's fact checks are not really fact checks at all, but merely opinion assertions also by facebook clement, its 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 loves giving people a voice, especially don't come. 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

and that's not what we signed up for with facebook in the 1st place. and it's definitely not something that a mega company that governs something like a communication platform. it's not something they should be involved in. again, we're anti it as an american, we're generally anti restriction of our freedoms and something that so censorship heavy is really uncomfortable. well, and this goes back to the question, is facebook a platform and information platform? is it actually create information itself? and when you sit there and say, you have the fact checkers who have protected opinions, it seems to be that you're actually an aggregator yourself. but i guess that's all going to be decided by a judge recently to get your take on this, you know, due to met his own data about their social media apps affecting teenagers, the u. k. cosmetic company love for many of you that don't know, it's kind of like a so make your own kind of soap and lotion type of product has now deleted all of their social media, facebook, instagram, tick, tock, snapshot, which is a

, facebook admits its fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that its fac checks are not really fat checks at all, but merely pin im assertions also by facebook claim in its 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 op eds or editorials. also, facebook, all fact shit labels can not 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 so committed to free speech. it loves giving people a voice, especially donald trump. it's dedicated to openness, transparency, and of course, democracy. i mean, it says all the time, if 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 anxious to

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 op eds or editorials. also, facebook or fax it labels can not be false or defamatory because they consist she'd protects that 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 loves giving people a voice, especially donald trump. it's dedicated to openness, transparency, and of course, democracy. i mean, it says all the time, if 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 anxious to connect with one another and not reserving those as tools for some small number of a lead people. i don't feel comfortable at all saying they don't get to

i used to work at facebook. i joined the company because i believe facebook has the potential to bring out the best in us. i am here today because i believe facebook's products harm children, a stoked division in our communities, threaten our democracies, we our national security and much more. facebook is a company that's paid for its immense profits with our safety and security. i'm honored to be here to show -- share what i know and i'm grateful for the level of scrutiny these issues are getting. i hope we can focus on the real harm to real people rather than talk in abstractions. this is about the teenagers whose mental health is undermined by instagram and it's about their parents and teachers who were struggling to deal with the consequences of that harm. it's about the doctors and nurses who have to cope with conspiracies about covid-19 and vaccines. it's about people who have suffered harassment online. it's about families at home and around the world who live in places where hate, fear have been raven -

after years of flagging posts as false or misleading facebook admits in court, but it's much vaunted fact jacks are actually based on opinion. and r t vows to keep fighting in response to a string of attacks against is brand new german language channel. in the last few days, it's been taken off youtube and accused of lacking the necessary license to broadcast in germany. ah . are good to have you with us. it's sunday and our tea. and that means we take you through some of the bigger stores reported on here over the past of 7 days. also keeping watch on the weekends developments as well. first though friday, so russia release a list of proposals for the escalating tensions with nato. amid fears of a flare up in ukraine, among the demands or a scale back of military activity near russia's borders, the west military alliance says it will consider the document adding, though that any outcome will require input from kev. i'll senior correspondent reg gasdio reports on what moscow is putting forward for years now. we've heard the same thing. oh, things have gone too far. a, we don't want w

mm hm. facebook changed. ah. and in the philippines, it really is the internet for the journalists role as gatekeepers. that's dead in the ed. it comes down to the tech platforms. social media in particular, will determine what gets delivered to people. mm hm. in january of 2018, the government of the philippines tried to shut wrapper down, were being investigated. and then we're, we're pacing legal cases. one on ownership that could land me in prison for anywhere from 5 to 15 years. the court of appeals came out with a decision after midday being denied our appeal harassment. it is to distract us. it is to stop us from reporting. it's to intimidate us, so we don't so we don't challenge i think the, the biggest wake up call for the government was the day after they, they tried to shut down rosler. there was a global reaction to which i don't think they counted on that. they also didn't count the raptor would fight rattler was a dream in 2011, a group of friends. and i kind of thought that there's this new technol

we will discuss this is facebook. so this fact checkers are from a 3rd party, therefore facebook themselves are not centering, one line of ideology over another. but what if facebook fail to mention? they are okay with these fact checkers having their own opinions. it's all in the details and we will discuss, and during this latest outbreak of deadly weather across the mid south, did companies choose to put a profit over the safety of their workers. we will give you all the details and discuss with our expert panel. and 1st, andrew has tried again to have complaints of abuse against him dismiss, or at the very least field we will let you know everything that's happened up until now and they just plain mexico. i'm a guy now hughes in these stories and more on today's news views right here on our team. erica, let's get started. ah, it's great to be with you today. you know, we all know major changes were made to facebook, now re branded as mehta back in 2016 after donald trump won the presidential election. all of these

so, so say, you know, they did the auto suit facebook and facebook kind reprice. well, a story are, these are the eel. maybe they're just their opinions. i, these only are opinion date, your facts are wrong. does he sound bizarre? when i suppose facebook going to say it's free rock and a hard place has been so much criticism a over the years from all vetting things properly. is it, is it getting anything right these days? is it doing a better job than it used to? not at all because i what facebook does our is, is our, did they appoint our 3rd party fact checkers. and when you look arm a little bit closely about who the fuck chick is, are you find it? without exception, these are all are far left to our liberal organisations. are they are they tend to um, a label or falls. any information? did they simply do not agree with or any information that they feel evidence of how to say that though, puddle. what evidence if he got to say that, well, did they did, they did their court papers here. i'm reading from, from, from a defense by our, our facebook to our court case

and of course, it does have a right to do this facebook as a private company. so it's policy is an internal matter. but the point is, is that it does have responsibility on accountability before it's roughly 3000000000 uses wild wide. and actually speaking of that and undoubtedly who feel misled at best. and maybe downright night to it was, they've been sharing that take on these latest developments. court filing, facebook admits it's fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that it's fact checks are not really fact checks at all, but merely pin him assertions also by facebook clement it's labels constitute opinions than doesn't that make it at publisher. facebook, your opinion piece is not exempt from being fact checked, even when they are clearly labeled as op eds or editorials. also, facebook or fax labels can not be false or from a tree because they constitute protected opinion, even though we present them as fact. we don't. facebook got a whole section on its website dedicated to fact check, isn't it ready? does salad while you know, a 2

. facebook admits it's fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that it's fact checks are not really fact checks at all, but merely opinion assertions also by facebook clement it's labels constitute opinions than doesn't that make it a publisher. facebook, your opinion piece is non exempt from being fact checks even when they are clearly labeled as op eds or editorials. also, facebook, i'll fax it, labels cannot be false or defamatory because they concede she 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 proved it's committed to free speech. it is giving people a voice, especially don't come. 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 a

assertions also by facebook claims. look, your opinion piece is not exempt from being fact checked even when they are clearly labeled as o peds or editorials. also, facebook or fax labels can not be false or to pharma tree because they constitute protected opinion, even though we present them as fact. we don't facebook to put a whole section on its website dedicated to fact check as and it really does solid . while you know, a 2 organizations watching and 60 language as slice together. it's a rigorous process and that process involves identifying the problematic post and then reviewing it and apparently, and wanted to decide whether this post is asked to whether or not it goes straight to the sun. will sit into these people consult data. and that on the basis of these findings, that determines whether that content needs to be filtered or allowed to socket 8. so really does sound like a thorough only scientific process, no way in all of that. and bleeping, i've told i've some tool through it, there's a lot of it, there's

i'm sure facebook will appeal this. and it's going to drag on for a very, very long time, but it really is entertaining to see the cma come out and try and make meta sell giphy. i'm not sure how it will turn out. and a quick last word — we talked right at the start about kent online inadvertently publishing some pretty terrible content from readers comments. do you think anyone is going to stop facebook and twitter from doing the same thing? i mean, there are some countries in the world where speech on facebook and twitter and other places is already very heavily moderated. it's not impossible. it's a question of where the law should be drawn up throughout the free speech, and i think that really going to look to america because that's where these companies are based, that's where they feel emotionally they have to please regulators a lot of time, although india is really becoming a way for them as well. and i think that the difficulty is that while both republicans and democrats agree that they like to reign in big t

david marcus ran paypal, then went over to facebook, tried to launch facebook's cryptocurrency project to much criticism and controversy. interestingly, david kirkpatrick said yesterday he thinks jack dorsey leaving twitter is kind of a rebuke of mark zuckerberg doubling down on meta in the midst of controversy. what can you tell us about david marcus' departure and what that means? tom: as you mentioned, dm really never got off the ground. right from the start, they announced this thing in 2019 with fanfare. this was going to be this new currency that would be backed by a basket of currencies, including the dollar and the euro. the thing about that, i really think it was ahead of its time but very badly executed. they did not foresee the amount of pushback they were going to get. having facebook be part of it immediately raised questions about the credibility of it and questions about user privacy, which facebook has shown it is not the most important thing on their list of priorities. second of all, there is a question about how destabilizing this might be to global currencies. i thi

, facebook admits its fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that it's fact checks are not really fact checks at all, but merely opinion assertions also by facebook clement 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 op eds or editorials. also, facebook are fact check labels can not be false or defamatory, because they concede 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 anxious to connec

, facebook admits its fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that it's fact checks are not really fact checks at all, but merely opinion assertions also by facebook clement it's labels constitute opinions than doesn't that make it at publisher. facebook, your opinion piece is not exempt from being fact checks even when they are clearly labeled as op eds or editorials. also, facebook are fact checked. labels can not 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 loves giving people a voice, especially donald trump. it's dedicated to openness, transparency, and of course, democracy. i mean, it says all the time, if 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

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 op eds or editorials. also, facebook, i'll fax it, labels cannot be false or defamatory because they concede she 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 proved it's committed to free speech. it is giving people a voice, especially don't come. 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 to lead people. i don't feel comfortable at all saying they don't get to have a voice bec

how does that affect facebook? will if it does, there's a problem for facebook. at facebook was operating within me and mar and the, the insightful speech that led people to a violent and genocidal deportation of the ringing get from me and married 2017 that these events occurred within me in that facebook's trying, i think to be a little bit sneaky about this, they're suggesting that they can operate in a country like me and that they can cause chaos in the country like me in math. but when it comes to a legal responsibility for their actions, they want to rely upon the notion that they are ultimately a united states company, and that they should be, that they should be judged by the standards of the law in the united states. i mean, i think this is very much the way companies operated in the colonial era where they would absolutely ravage poor countries. they would take the economic resources from them as they court. and then they'd rely upon the notion that they were acting legally within their own legal framework and, and use that as a shield to prevent the v

now, you won't find any of these details in the giant fac tech inspection on facebook dot com. instead, you'll learn about how they interview thought fit and consult data. and 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 users worldwide, one, sorry, pleased. after all, many of them had probably used these fact jacqueline martin with their friends. and now it's turned out they were just quoting some random person's opinion and then embarrassing railing, so that campaigning for faith might not 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 fact checks at all, but merely opinion assertions also by facebook clement 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 op eds or editorials. also, facebook, all fact check labels cannot be false or defamatory because they constant

and of course, it does have a right to do this facebook as a private company. so it's policy is an internal matter. but the point is, is that it does have responsibility on accountability before it's roughly 3000000000 users wild wide. and actually speaking of that and undoubtedly who feel misled at best and may be downright night to it was they've been sharing that take on these latest developments. court filing, facebook admits it's fact checkers. don't check facts. is facebook admitted here that it's fact checks are not really fact checks at all, but merely pin him assertions also by facebook clement 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 op eds or editorials. also, facebook or fax labels can not be false or defamatory because that constant sheet protects it opinion, even though we present them, as fact. we don't facebook to put a whole section on its website dedicated to fact check isn't it really does salad while you kno

and then, he turned to facebook. there�*s a £5.5 billion — according to your own cma figures — £5.5 billion display advertising market in the uk. facebook has more than 50% of that. is that too much? er, yes. why? when companies have too much economic power, that creates a number of distortions, first for competitors, secondly for consumers. some level potentially in terms of the political process as well, in some cases. overnight, australia and facebook reached a compromise over a new law to force it and google to pay news publishers more for their content. facebook had blocked news content in the row but that�*s now being restored. under a new deal, there will be mediation to agree payments before any final arbitration kicks in. i think that the australian approach is a sensible one, which is to try to force the companies into proper commercial negotiations, with the backstop of a possible intervention by a regulator. the tech giants argue that publishers choose to be on their platform because they derive

and then, he turned to facebook. there's a £5.5 billion — according to your own cma figures — £5.5 billion display advertising market in the uk. facebook has more than 50% of that. is that too much? er, yes. why? when companies have too much economic power, that creates a number of distortions, first for competitors, secondly for consumers. some level potentially in terms of the political process as well, in some cases. 0vernight, australia and facebook reached a compromise over a new law to force it and google to pay news publishers more for their content. facebook had blocked news content in the row but that's now being restored. under a new deal, there will be mediation to agree payments before any final arbitration kicks in. i think that the australian approach is a sensible one, which is to try to force the companies into proper commercial negotiations, with the backstop of a possible intervention by a regulator. the tech giants argue that publishers choose to be on their platform because they derive value

i'm because facebook already spent millions of dollars on legal fees over the years. it got creative this time and claimed that front check was don't decide what's false, so not based on fact. what to ridiculous idea, but on their opinion. hence the title, fact checkup i'm 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 doubled down on how it gives it. fact check has a very long leash so matter identifies potential misinformation, for fact checkers to review and rate. it leaves the ultimate determination whether information is false so misleading to the fact checkers. and though meta has designed its platforms so that fact checker ratings appear next to 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 dot com. instead, you'll learn about how they interview thought fit and consult data and look for facts, you know, to