Loading

WION采访闫博士后遭FACEBOOK封杀 【中英对照翻译】

新闻来源:WION News《WION新闻》;作者:Gravitas desk;发布时间:October 12, 2020 / 2020年10月12日

翻译/简评:Dreamer文童;校对:文峰;审核:InAHurry;Page:拱卒

简评:

对全球社交媒体的控制在CCP的超限战策略中占据极其重要的位置。从对郭先生的推特账号封杀到对闫博士的第一个推特账号的封杀,这些痘在爆料革命的进程中验证了CCP对社交媒体的控制和对全球媒体的控制。Facebook在审查了闫博士接受Tucker Carlson的采访后,又对印度媒体WION对闫博士的采访进行了审查。作为社交媒体,Facebook借口“事实核对”剥夺言论自由的权利,对病毒真相的审查并在毫无证据的情况下称这些采访为虚假信息,这些都表明了Facebook也是被CCP控制的一个玩偶。美国的社交媒体获得立法授权,可以自行进行内容审查,相关法律与美国宪法第一修正案是相违背的,必须得到修改。CCP虽然利用利蓝金黄绿控制了美国媒体,但随着爆料革命进入深水区,这些都已经暴露出来,它们将随着CCP的覆灭被钉在历史的耻辱柱上。

原文翻译:

Facebook censors WION after interview with Chinese virologist Dr Li-Meng Yan, who claimed COVID-19 is lab manufactured

在对声称COVID-19系实验室产物的中国病毒学家闫丽梦博士采访后,Facebook对WION进行了审查

Left - Facebook, Right - WION Photograph:( WION ) 左-Facebook,右-WION 照片:WION

If you see less of our content on your Facebook feed, it is because the social media giant is now censoring WION.

如果你在Facebook推送较少看到我们的内容,那是因为社交媒体巨头正在审查WION。

If a user tries to share some of WION’s stories on Facebook, they may see a prompt saying the following: “False information: Checked by independent fact checkers".

如果(社交媒体)用户试图在Facebook分享WION的一些故事,他们可能会看到一个即时回复,内容如下:“虚假信息:已由独立事实核查机构认定”。

Why are we bringing this up?

我们为何提及此事?

Facebook has rated one of our interviews as “fake news”. The interview in question was with Dr Li-Meng Yan, a virologist from China who claimed that COVID-19 was manufactured in a lab, and shed light on the discreet underpinnings of the pandemic in China.

Facebook已将我们的其中一个采访评价为“虚假信息”。这个有问题的采访是与闫丽梦博士进行的,一位来自中国的病毒学家,其声称COVID-19系在实验室制造的,并解释了中国病毒大流行的谨慎依据。

The Chinese virologist had made world headlines with a sensational claim of the origins of COVID-19.

这位中国病毒学家对COVID-19来源的轰动性言论已登上世界(媒体)的头条。

On October 12, Facebook sent out a message to us regarding a piece that ran on our website - wionews.com about the interview with Dr Yan.

10月12日,Facebook向我们发出一条信息,关于在我们网站-wionews.com运行的采访闫博士的文章。

During the interview, Dr Yan had told WION that Chinese virologists in Wuhan were forced into silence about the outbreak. The report was shared on Facebook.

在采访中,闫博士告诉WION,在武汉的中国病毒学家被强迫对疫情爆发保持沉默。此后,我们在Facebook上分享了该报道。

A few weeks later, the post has been flagged for a “misinformation strike” by Facebook. And just on the basis of this one statement, WION's distribution has been reduced.

但在数周后,该帖子已被Facebook标记为“错误信息袭击”,仅基于Facebook的这一标签,就已经造成了WION的发行量减少。

Irony tower

讽刺塔

Ironically, Facebook itself doesn't have a role in fact-checking on its platform, and outsources the job to independent fact-checkers.

具有讽刺意味的是,Facebook本身在其平台上并没有事实核查的角色,而是将该项工作外包给了独立的事实核查机构。

In our case, the fact-checking was done by an organisation called Science Feedback.

在我们的案例中,事实核查由一个名为“科学反馈”(Science Feedback)的机构完成。

WION has been at the helm of coronavirus coverage, even when only a few networks were covering the cause. In fact, we are among those few networks that questioned Dr Li-Meng Yan on her claims.

即使在仅有少数网络(媒体)报道病毒的时候,WION已经掌握冠状病毒报道的主导地位。实际上,我们是质疑闫丽梦博士言论的少数网络(媒体)之一。

The interview, which ran on September 22, marked Dr Yan’s first interview in Asia after publishing her study. Her study has been widely discredited by the scientific community. In response, she said the Chinese Communist Party is trying to muzzle her voice.

该访谈于9月22日进行,是闫博士在公布其报告后首次接受亚洲媒体的采访。她的报告被科学界广泛质疑。作为回应,她称中国共产党正试图封锁她的声音。

On September 17, 2020 - we ran a report on Dr Yan’s claims, which claimed how the scientific community is vocally rejecting her claims and criticising her saying her arguments aren't backed by data.

2020年9月17日,我们针对闫博士的言论撰写了一份报告,该报告描述了科学界如何大声反对她的言论,并批评她说她的论点缺乏数据支持。

Double standards?

双重标准?

Freedom of speech should be applicable to all - without the cherry-picking. You can debunk the theory of a Chinese virologist, but not deny her a platform.

所有人均应享有言论自由,无需挑选。你可以揭穿中国病毒学家的理论,但不能拒绝给她一个发声平台。

Based on the communication we received from Facebook, user access to our stories is hereby limited. For reference, they sent us an article - another “fact-check” of an interview that ran on Fox News. On the basis of this, Facebook wants us to issue a correction. Other news outlets that carried a report based on our interview have got similar notices.

根据我们收到的来自Facebook的通信,用户访问我们的故事已据此受到限制。作为参考,他们(Facebook)发给我们一篇文章 – 由Fox News进行采访的另一个“事实核查”。基于此,Facebook要求我们发布更正。其他根据我们的采访进行报道的新闻媒体已收到类似通知。

How can Facebook become an arbiter of truth? How can it censor a journalistic effort to probe a story?

Facebook如何成为真相的裁决者?它(Facebook)如何能对调查事件的新闻工作成果进行审查?

A report came out earlier this year which claimed that “Facebook spreads fake news faster than any other social website".

今年早些时候,一份公布出来的报道称“Facebook传播虚假新闻的速度快过任何其他社交网站”。

Researchers tracked the internet use of more than three thousand Americans during the last presidential elections in the US. They found Facebook to be the preferred site for untrustworthy news sources more than 15 per cent of the time.

研究人员追踪了超过三千名美国人在上届美国总统大选期间使用互联网的情况。他们发现,在超过15%的时间里,Facebook是不可靠新闻来源的首选网站。

Facebook is the largest social media network on this planet, and has a large volume of content, including fake news.

Facebook是世界上最大的社交媒体网络,并且拥有大量内容,其中包含虚假信息。

In 2018, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg refused to remove posts that denied the Holocaust. Back then, he had said, it must allow users to make "unintentional mistakes". Today, after intense pressure Facebook has reversed its stand. Now, posts that deny or distort the Holocaust will be banned.

在2018年,Facebook首席执行官马克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)拒绝删除否认大屠杀的帖子。当时,他说应该允许用户犯“无意的错误”。现今,在巨大压力之下,Facebook已改变其立场。现在,否认或扭曲大屠杀的帖子将被禁止。

In our case, fact-checkers earmarked the name of a Chinese virologist, and labelled everything linked with her name as fake news.

在我们的案例中,事实核查人员标记了这位中国病毒学家的名字,并且将与她的名字相关的一切均归类为虚假信息。

Facebook’s conclusion- “the virus most likely evolved in natural wildlife populations”.

Facebook的结论为:“该病毒很有可能在自然野生物种中进化而来。”

Is that a fact? Or is it a guess? Did they practically investigate the source of the virus? Or refer to other reports?

那是事实吗?或只是猜测?他们实际调查病毒来源了吗?或他们只是参考了其他报道?

By this logic, can Facebook one day tell us that India was the aggressor in Ladakh? And not China? Because the fact-checking bots say so?

按照这个逻辑,是否有天Facebook可以告诉我们印度是拉达克的侵略者?而不是中国?因为事实核查的机器人程序是这么说的?

Since Facebook is the arbiter of truth, it can decide what's right and what isn't.

因为Facebook是真相的裁决者,它能决定什么是对或错。

编辑:【喜马拉雅战鹰团】Edited by:【Himalaya Hawk Squad】