Leonardo Maria Del Vecchio tenta di comprare Il Fatto ma gli azionisti fondatori declinano l’offerta. Il cda di Lmdv Media, la società di investimento dedicata all’editoria che fa capo al family office Lmdv Capital, ha deliberato di autorizzare un’attività di due diligence su informazioni relative alla società editrice Seif per promuovere un’offerta pubblica di acquisto volontaria totalitaria finalizzata al delisting. In caso di esito positivo della due diligence, l’offerta sarebbe promossa al prezzo di 0,286 euro per azione per un controvalore di 7.152.860 euro. Il corrispettivo incorporerebbe un premio pari a circa il 30% rispetto al prezzo ufficiale delle azioni Seif al 23 ottobre. L’offerta, che arriva a distanza di alcuni mesi dall’acquisizione della partecipazione di maggioranza pari all’80% di En, Editoriale Nazionale che controlla i quotidiani Il Giorno, La Nazione, Il Resto del Carlino e la testata nazionale Qn, sarebbe subordinata al raggiungimento di una partecipazione complessiva almeno pari o superiore all’82,9% del capitale votante nell’assemblea ordinaria.

Il comunicato di Seif

La Società ha ricevuto in data odierna una comunicazione da parte dei soci fondatori Antonio Padellaro, Cinzia Monteverdi, Francesco Aliberti, Peter Gomez, Marco Travaglio, Marco Lillo e Luca d’Aprile, rappresentativi di una quota pari alla maggioranza del capitale sociale della Società, con la quale gli stessi hanno manifestato la propria intenzione di non essere interessati a cedere la propria quota e dunque di non voler aderire a una eventuale offerta pubblica di acquisto che fosse promossa da LMDV Media all’esito della due diligence annunciata nel richiamato comunicato del 25 ottobre 2026. Si rammenta che, come indicato nel comunicato LMDV Media del 25 ottobre 2026, la promozione dell’eventuale offerta sarebbe subordinata, tra l’altro, al raggiungimento di una partecipazione complessiva nell’Emittente almeno pari o superiore all’82,9% del capitale votante nell’assemblea ordinaria, in modo da rendere inoperante il limite statutario che non consente di possedere azioni SEIF in misura superiore al 17% del capitale sociale.
Il Consiglio di Amministrazione di SEIF si riunirà nei prossimi giorni per esaminare il contenuto del comunicato LMDV Media e della comunicazione ricevuta dai soci fondatori.

L'articolo Leonardo Maria Del Vecchio vuole comprare Il Fatto. Gli azionisti fondatori: “Non siamo interessati a cedere le nostre quote” proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Jeff Kinney, the 55-year-old author of the "Diary of a Wimpy Kid" series, who lives in Plainville, Massachusetts. It has been edited for length and clarity.

When I wrote "Diary of a Wimpy Kid," I worked on it for eight or nine years without thinking I was writing a book for kids.

I thought I was writing a book for grown-ups that would feel like "The Wonder Years" or "A Christmas Story" — looking back on childhood through the lens of an adult.

The first thing that surprised me was that my publisher said I'd actually written a children's series; it caused a lot of cognitive dissonance.

But what also surprised me was that kids understood the irony in the books. They understand that Greg is an unreliable narrator; they seem to get the joke.

After writing the series, and after raising two kids of my own — ages 21 and 23 — I've learned a few things about kids. Here's my best advice about getting kids to read, screen time, and more — plus a few things I'd go back and change if I could.

1. To get kids to read, feed their interests

I recently heard author Jack Gantos say that after dinner, he and his family would get out their books and read. I think that's really cool and also very old-fashioned, in a way. I wish we'd done it when raising our kids.

With reading, I think the most important thing you can do is feed your kids' interests, whether they're interested in Pokémon cards or sharks or tornadoes. Get them books or magazines that speak to their interests, rather than trying to give them books that we read as kids or books that are too high-minded for their age level.

A lot of authors who write for kids start with some sort of a lesson, and there's a time and place for that. But kids read for the same reason that adults read: to be entertained. If we start from a position of trying to teach kids a lesson, they'll sniff that out and turn away from it.

It's really important to encourage kids down a path that gets them reaching for the next book. I want them to feel a feeling of success in having finished a book because that's an important act of completion. But mostly, I'd like them to keep reading, whatever form that might take.

2. Listen to them

In everyday parenting, sitting at dinner with our kids and hearing about their day without judgment is a really good foundation. Just about everything that kids today are going through, we've been through in some form. The most powerful thing that we can say to kids is "I understand," or "I've been there myself," and share stories, making sure that they feel seen and heard.

As parents, we should make ourselves vulnerable to our kids by telling them about the struggles that we went through.

If we do that without moralizing and without judgment, I think it draws us closer to our kids and turns us into a resource for them.

3. Envision your future relationship

I've always thought about my relationship with my kids by imagining, How do I want our relationship to look when my kids are adults? I've tried to anticipate that and treat my kids that way the whole time.

I think it's working out because my kids will call me and want to go see the Patriots or the Celtics with me. I think that's partially because I've always had this version of our relationship in mind.

4. Don't get too wrapped up in kids' sports

As parents, we live and die by our kids' successes in sports. I certainly got too caught up in it and couldn't really anticipate that there would be a life beyond sports for my kids.

If I were to go back in time, I probably would change my approach on that. We like to see our kids succeed, and of course, sports is a big stage where there's a lot wrapped up in their success, including social issues and self-esteem.

When our kids are thriving, we feel really good for them, and when they're failing, it's tough for them and us. I can understand why that happens with parents, but I can also see that it's good to take a step back.

5. Help them understand that social media manipulates

Social media bullying is something that we never had to face growing up, and it's really unfortunate and damaging.

Screen time has changed things — you see studies finding that kids are dating a lot less, and there's a loneliness epidemic.

As parents, we can help kids by educating them and helping them understand that social media companies are incentivized to make you spend more time on your screens. The more that my kids, who grew up immersed in the social media world, began to understand that, the more they wanted to move away from it.

They get out there in the world — touch grass, play sports, and pick up basketball. My son will put lockouts on his social media.

It's important for us to think for ourselves before we turn to AI

As AI becomes a part of schoolwork and daily life, my concern is that AI makes a lot of things very easy.

At times, I look for solutions through AI that I could conjure up myself, so I worry about how that rewires the brain when you feel like there's always an agent that can solve your problem for you. It could reduce your own capacity for problem-solving.

It's really important for kids to be able to think for themselves before turning to the tool.

To counteract that, getting out in the world and interacting with one another is really important. Put kids into social situations; for example, my son has been working as a bookseller this past year, where he's had to interact with lots of different types of people and solve problems.

A lot of kids or young people in this generation are more isolated. They spend a lot more time in their rooms on their phones, and so I think that getting them out there interacting with other human beings is going to give them a competitive advantage.

La legge c’è ma non se ne parla!
È mai possibile che la libertà di espressione non sia più considerata dai democratici un diritto fondamentale?
Quando si parla di internet la Costituzione italiana non vale?
La censura non è più un crimine intollerabile?
Non riesco proprio a capire perché ai partiti e alla maggioranza degli intellettuali progressisti più popolari non interessa la pesante censura che colpisce ogni giorno decine di migliaia di pagine web pacifiste, antirazziste e antifasciste.
Si sono dimenticati che il referendum è stato vinto proprio grazie alla capacità di comunicazione dei nostri social network? (Su questo punto qualcuno ha dubbi?)
Le prossime elezioni si possono vincere senza una battaglia contro i colossi del web che umiliano la nostra libertà di espressione e supportano così la destra?

Io faccio parte di questo popolo censurato.
L’ultimo attacco l’ho subito da TikTok, che ha appena bannato un mio video contro il trasferimento dei bambini stranieri dalle classi scolastiche nelle quali, secondo il governo, sarebbero troppi. Su Facebook questo video è ancora visibile qui ma ne è stata limitata la circolazione. Guardatelo e ditemi dove viola “le linee guida della community di TikTok” contro il razzismo. Accusano chi si schiera contro la discriminazione verso gli immigrati di essere razzista.

Oggi anche l’Italia (con vergognoso ritardo passato sotto silenzio) si è adeguata alle decisioni europee (Freedom Act, EMFA, del 2024) che sanciscono l’obbligo per i social network di rispettare la libertà di espressione degli utenti. Ogni cittadino che è stato colpito dalla censura può rivolgersi all’AGCOM, che deve stabilire se c’è stata violazione della libertà di espressione. Dopodiché è possibile fare causa al social network che non ha rispettato la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea e la Costituzione italiana, che sanciscono la libertà di parola e di stampa, diritto fondamentale di ogni cittadino.

VEDI QUI TUTTE LE INFORMAZIONI LEGALI su cosa puoi fare per difendere i tuoi diritti.

Ma perché questa notizia non è stata considerata importante dai partiti progressisti? Perché il diritto di esprimere e di leggere idee non censurate non interessa alla maggioranza degli intellettuali progressisti? Perché i leader progressisti considerano privi di importanza i diritti fondamentali degli utenti dei social network?
Ho parlato di questo problema con parlamentari progressisti chiedendo che venissero creati sportelli che fornissero assistenza legale a chi vuol fare causa ai social network. Esistono già parecchie cause vinte in Italia e in Europa e si potrebbe organizzare una battaglia legale unendo decine di migliaia di persone danneggiate per le loro idee e far pagare a chi viola la libertà di espressione qualche centinaio di milioni di euro. Così la smettono.
La risposta è stata: “Sì, bravo Jacopo, ti telefono lunedì…”
Lunedì di che anno?

Tanto per far capire l’enormità del problema, ecco cosa è successo a me.
Prima dell’ottobre del 2023 la mia pagina FB totalizzava 23 milioni di visualizzazioni ogni 28 giorni. Dopo che io ho sostenuto le posizioni del Papa, condannando le violenze di Hamas come quelle del governo israeliano, le mie visualizzazioni sono precipitate a meno di 200 mila ogni 28 giorni!
Oggi le mie visualizzazioni sono al di sotto di un milione ogni 28 giorni. E, come ha sottolineato il quotidiano “Avvenire“, lo stesso è successo a migliaia di pagine di pacifisti cattolici.

Come si fa a opporsi al genocidio dei palestinesi e contemporaneamente non vedere che la capacità di opposizione è avvilita da una censura di proporzioni enormi? Difendere la libertà di espressione sul web è fondamentale per dare forza a tutte le battaglie umanitarie e civili!!!
Cari leader progressisti, ma come ragionate? Veramente volete affrontare le elezioni con decine di migliaia di pagine social democratiche e antifasciste silenziate?

Sulla censura che mi ha colpito vedi su questo blog.

L'articolo Perché i progressisti non difendono la libertà di parola sui social network? proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

La legge c’è ma non se ne parla!
È mai possibile che la libertà di espressione non sia più considerata dai democratici un diritto fondamentale?
Quando si parla di internet la Costituzione italiana non vale?
La censura non è più un crimine intollerabile?
Non riesco proprio a capire perché ai partiti e alla maggioranza degli intellettuali progressisti più popolari non interessa la pesante censura che colpisce ogni giorno decine di migliaia di pagine web pacifiste, antirazziste e antifasciste.
Si sono dimenticati che il referendum è stato vinto proprio grazie alla capacità di comunicazione dei nostri social network? (Su questo punto qualcuno ha dubbi?)
Le prossime elezioni si possono vincere senza una battaglia contro i colossi del web che umiliano la nostra libertà di espressione e supportano così la destra?

Io faccio parte di questo popolo censurato.
L’ultimo attacco l’ho subito da TikTok, che ha appena bannato un mio video contro il trasferimento dei bambini stranieri dalle classi scolastiche nelle quali, secondo il governo, sarebbero troppi. Su Facebook questo video è ancora visibile qui ma ne è stata limitata la circolazione. Guardatelo e ditemi dove viola “le linee guida della community di TikTok” contro il razzismo. Accusano chi si schiera contro la discriminazione verso gli immigrati di essere razzista.

Oggi anche l’Italia (con vergognoso ritardo passato sotto silenzio) si è adeguata alle decisioni europee (Freedom Act, EMFA, del 2024) che sanciscono l’obbligo per i social network di rispettare la libertà di espressione degli utenti. Ogni cittadino che è stato colpito dalla censura può rivolgersi all’AGCOM, che deve stabilire se c’è stata violazione della libertà di espressione. Dopodiché è possibile fare causa al social network che non ha rispettato la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea e la Costituzione italiana, che sanciscono la libertà di parola e di stampa, diritto fondamentale di ogni cittadino.

VEDI QUI TUTTE LE INFORMAZIONI LEGALI su cosa puoi fare per difendere i tuoi diritti.

Ma perché questa notizia non è stata considerata importante dai partiti progressisti? Perché il diritto di esprimere e di leggere idee non censurate non interessa alla maggioranza degli intellettuali progressisti? Perché i leader progressisti considerano privi di importanza i diritti fondamentali degli utenti dei social network?
Ho parlato di questo problema con parlamentari progressisti chiedendo che venissero creati sportelli che fornissero assistenza legale a chi vuol fare causa ai social network. Esistono già parecchie cause vinte in Italia e in Europa e si potrebbe organizzare una battaglia legale unendo decine di migliaia di persone danneggiate per le loro idee e far pagare a chi viola la libertà di espressione qualche centinaio di milioni di euro. Così la smettono.
La risposta è stata: “Sì, bravo Jacopo, ti telefono lunedì…”
Lunedì di che anno?

Tanto per far capire l’enormità del problema, ecco cosa è successo a me.
Prima dell’ottobre del 2023 la mia pagina FB totalizzava 23 milioni di visualizzazioni ogni 28 giorni. Dopo che io ho sostenuto le posizioni del Papa, condannando le violenze di Hamas come quelle del governo israeliano, le mie visualizzazioni sono precipitate a meno di 200 mila ogni 28 giorni!
Oggi le mie visualizzazioni sono al di sotto di un milione ogni 28 giorni. E, come ha sottolineato il quotidiano “Avvenire“, lo stesso è successo a migliaia di pagine di pacifisti cattolici.

Come si fa a opporsi al genocidio dei palestinesi e contemporaneamente non vedere che la capacità di opposizione è avvilita da una censura di proporzioni enormi? Difendere la libertà di espressione sul web è fondamentale per dare forza a tutte le battaglie umanitarie e civili!!!
Cari leader progressisti, ma come ragionate? Veramente volete affrontare le elezioni con decine di migliaia di pagine social democratiche e antifasciste silenziate?

Sulla censura che mi ha colpito vedi su questo blog.

L'articolo Perché i progressisti non difendono la libertà di parola sui social network? proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.

By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 24, 2026

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has found a novel way of solving Britain’s cost-of-living crisis. By bombing Yemen.

Yes, you read that correctly. This week, Burnham authorized the deployment of British Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia for its war with Yemen.

Downing Street assured the British public that the deployment was for “defensive” operations only. The BBC and other British media outlets indulged this fantasy by repeating over and over that the Royal Air Force was being deployed for “defensive actions”. The RAF would not be engaging in attacking Yemen, it was claimed, and the British fighter jets were being sent to “protect” Saudi Arabia from “escalating” Houthi aggression.

Britain’s Minister of Defense Wes Streeting (a former health minister, please note) framed the RAF mission as necessary to counter instability in the Middle East and soaring energy prices. As if Britain was not the cause of instability and higher fuel costs by backing Trump’s aggression on Iran.

The Guardian reported: “The [British] military intervention [in Yemen] was partly justified because instability in the Middle East was driving up energy prices and affecting the cost of living.”

This logic is as absurd as it is gross deception.

Recall that Burnham was ushered into Downing Street in July to replace the hapless Keir Starmer as Labour prime minister. Burnham, formerly the Mayor of Manchester and posing with his working-class credentials, made a big public pitch that he would prioritize easing the cost-of-living crisis ravaging Britain.

However, since entering office, his most notable forays have been in foreign policy. For example, he has received the Ukrainian dictator Vladimir Zelensky in Downing Street with promises of more military aid in addition to the $20 billion that Britain has already provided (the second largest source of aid in Europe after Germany). Burnham has pledged to provide Ukraine with British blueprints for manufacturing cruise missiles.

Last month, Burnham announced that Britain was deploying an RAF in-air refuelling plane to “help” Saudi Arabia’s air strikes on Yemen. To allay public concerns about that move, Downing Street and the British media assured that the deployment was “defensive only” and for a limited period.

Ironically, Burnham made that announcement while travelling to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where he hailed Britain for offering world leadership for peace and security.

Now, again this week, the RAF deployment is extended to sending Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. London is also providing a RAF A400M transport plane for troops and up to 100 military advisers.

This sounds like classic mission creep. Downing Street is aware of the exposure to public criticism. The prime minister’s office denied Britain was being dragged into the conflict. It said: “Our support for Saudi Arabia is considered, proportionate and focused on helping them defend themselves from relentless Houthi attacks.”

The British government and media are distorting the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen as one of “aggression” by the Yemeni forces of Ansar Allah, referred to as “the Iran-backed Houthis”. That description makes the Yemenis sound like crazy terrorists who are being directed by Iran.

Here’s the BBC’s creative reporting:  “The UK will deploy RAF Typhoon jets to defend Saudi Arabia in response to escalating Houthi missile and drone attacks, the government has said.”

The BBC goes on: “The defensive mission will help defend Saudi cities and infrastructure – a move authorised by Prime Minister Andy Burnham – against aerial attacks by the Iran-backed group… Since September, Saudi Arabia has been struggling to defend its skies from Houthi attacks after a ceasefire of sorts in Yemen broke down.”

This is reality inversion by the British state-owned media outlet.

The ceasefire in Yemen was violated in mid-July when Saudi Arabia launched air strikes on the international airport in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, to target a delegation attending the state funeral of Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei, who was murdered in a U.S.-Israeli air strike on his family home in Tehran on February 28.

That ceasefire was called in 2022 to end a seven-year war of aggression by Saudi Arabia against Yemen. The war began in 2015 to reinstate a Saudi puppet regime that the Ansar Allah-led Yemenis ousted in 2014. The Saudis bombed Yemen relentlessly for seven years with support of the United States, Britain, and France. An estimated 20,000 Yemenis were killed in air strikes, and around 300,000 died from a humanitarian blockade that the Western-backed Saudi coalition imposed on the country.

Britain’s military minister Wes Streeting referred to recent Yemeni strikes on Saudi Arabia as “despicable”. He mentioned a ballistic missile attack on October 10 on King Khalid international airport in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. At least 13 people were killed in the strike, and over 300 were injured.

The Ansar Allah-led Yemeni Armed Forces have also hit several other Saudi airports and key oil industry installations. The number of Saudi civilians killed in these attacks is relatively small, around 20, whereas Saudi warplanes have killed hundreds of Yemeni civilians since it broke the ceasefire in July. This week, eight Yemeni fishermen were killed in Saudi strikes. What Yemen is doing to Saudi Arabia is self-defense, not aggression.

London and its media propaganda are making out that Britain is “defending” Saudi Arabia. The reality is London is assisting Saudi aggression and war crimes.

Significantly, Streeting flew to Washington, DC, last week, where he met the war secretary, Pete Hegseth. Their agenda was about how to respond to “Houthi escalation.” Obviously, the junior partner got the memo: send warplanes to Yemen; we’re too busy with Iran.

Meanwhile, in Britain, an unprecedented social crisis is unfolding from poverty and a crippling cost of living. Charities report that four million families are having to go without adequate food or home heating because of soaring bills. Oxfam estimates that 13.5 million Britons, or a fifth of the population, are suffering from poverty. More than six million people rely on food charities for a modicum of sustenance.

It tells you everything about a state whose government does nothing about its own people’s dire needs but finds the resources to send warplanes to distant countries to bomb other poor people.

Andy Burnham is just another puppet who is assigned to put on a show in Downing Street for public appeasement. The imperial deep state has its hand up his rear. That’s mission creep in Downing Street.

By Patrick LAWRENCE | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 24, 2026

Given the gush of vitriol and condemnation since Oct. 9, when Donald Trump announced his deal to import 5 million metric tons of Russian diesel, roughly 37 million barrels, one would think the president had surrendered the United States’ sovereignty to the Kremlin, or handed over the Ukrainians to the Russian army, or rankly betrayed the Europeans or altogether renounced what we picturesquely call Western civilization.

This is, indeed, what we read daily in the corporate press these days and what we are supposed to think. It is 2016 redux, it seems. Another round of Russiagate may not be far off, given 16 House Democrats have introduced a Prohibit Corrupt Russia Oil Deals Act and 12 senators now attack the diesel accord as “a gift to our adversary.”

If there is one thing essential to recall about those dreary years it is that the wobbly-from-the-first Russiagate edifice, the whole of it, was made of mis– and disinformation, hyperbole, innuendo, extravagant abuses of office and propaganda incessantly disseminated in corporate media.

It was, in short, the Deep State’s attempt to scuttle any effort to advance beyond the poisonous Russophobia it had spent a decade cultivating (taking my date from Vladimir Putin’s era-defining speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007).

It is the same again as Trump tries once more to end the war in Ukraine and refashion East–West relations, a project the old “MICIMATT”— the military-industrial, congressional, intelligence, media, academic and think tank blob — simply cannot abide.

Let us listen to this new round of rubbish with the recent past in mind.

“Donald Trump, meet Neville Chamberlain.” That is Tom Friedman, writing in The New York Times last week under the headline, “Trump’s Democracy–for–Diesel Deal Shames Us All.”

“When future students search online for ‘sellout,’ ‘appeaser’ or ‘traitor to his country’s core values,’” Friedman elaborates, “their two pictures will come up first, side by side.” There is no matching our Tom when it comes to overdrawn historical reference dressed up as intellectual gravitas.

Harold Meyerson, writing in The American Prospect Tuesday under the headline, “Why Putin Is Now Our Ally,” is unhappy that Americans are not angrier and more contemptuous than they appear to be in response to Trump’s latest démarche to Russia.

“We’ve grown so inured to Trump’s outrages,” he writes, “that his alliance with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s neo–Tsarist imperialist regime hasn’t yet stoked the level of horror and rage it deserves.”

Putin’s neo–Tsarist imperialist regime. We’re back to this, are we?

We’re also back to the good old Trump–Putin “bromance” bit, it seems, as in “Trump’s man-crush on the Russian dictator has been well documented and need not be recounted in all its unctuous detail.”

This bizarre suggestion of homophilia repeats a tiresome trope from the Russiagate years — never in the slightest documented, for the record — and this time comes from Tom Nichols, a neoliberal hack of long standing. Writing Oct. 18 in The Atlantic, Nichols wants us to see matters this way:

“Donald Trump has now abandoned pretense and is openly aiding the Kremlin in its war against a friend and partner of the U.S. The American commander in chief has abandoned the Western order, the most successful — and powerful — security arrangement in human history.”

Are we clear on all this? The corrupt, Nazi-infested regime in Kiev is America’s friend and partner, simple as that.

The Western order as we have it is the finest thing humanity has ever managed, and Donald J. Trump has forsaken this finest-ever order.

All because the Trumpster signed an agreement whereby the United States will purchase, all in, about two weeks’ worth of Russian diesel fuel.

Paranoia strikes deep, as should be plain to all as the imperium proceeds into its self-inflicted decline. Into the pages of The Atlantic it will creep whenever the topic is “Putin’s Russia” (as against “Russia”).

Trump’s ‘Simple’ Decision

How to account for this outpouring of nitwittery from all these pseuds? Why so suddenly does the world seem to be coming to an end? These are our questions.

Trump II has proven disastrously worse than Trump I, to state the obvious. He had a few good ideas the first time around: end the wars of adventure, bring the soldiers home, decommission NATO, a new détente with Moscow.

This time — and you have to credit the Trumpster for this, strange as it is to credit him with anything — he has only one. He still wants to restore relations with Russia to a working order of some kind, and this must begin with ending the war the Biden regime provoked very quickly after Trump was voted out of office.

Trump is a Manhattan property man for whom everything is transactional, we have to remember. Exploring “deals” does not figure at the higher end of statecraft — certainly not given all that is at issue between Russia and the West — but this is a question of method, not purpose. Let us not get lost in the former while losing sight of the latter.

Peaceful, constructive relations with Russia, based on an enduring settlement of benefit to all sides, are a good thing altogether to be welcomed, however often Americans and West Europeans are told any such eventuality would amount to the horror of horrors.

As everyone thinking about this has remarked, Trump’s immediate intent in striking his diesel deal is to get prices down as best he can before the midterm elections and to pretend the price crisis has causes other than the U.S.–Israeli assault on Iran.

I’m for setting the politics aside. A few days’ worth of diesel — all that can possibly arrive from Russian refineries before Nov. 3 — won’t make any difference, and Trump cannot but know this.

My mind goes to a remark Trump made on Truth Social, his digital bullhorn, at the beginning of this week in response to all the shrieking and shouting that followed his Oct. 9 announcement:

“My decision on Russia is a very simple one. I am in the process of negotiating Peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don’t want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.”

It is important to read this together with other things the Trump regime has got up to lately. While the United States is in plausible-denial mode, Kiev reports that it has disrupted some of the early-warning satellite intelligence vital to Ukraine’s defenses.

Elon Musk, apparently after consultation with the White House, has restricted Ukraine’s use of Starshield, the military-grade version of the Starlink communications system.

These are day-to-day lifelines. So is the Prioritized Ukraine Requirement List, the arrangement whereby the United States sells arms to the Europeans, who send them on to Ukraine. To date the volume of shipments through the P.U.R.L. channel has come to $7 billion. Trump is reportedly threatening to end the program.

Atop all this he has suspended implementation of a sanctions bill he signed into law only a month ago. Concurrently, the Witkoff–Kushner duo presented Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian dictator, with a new settlement proposal that reads to me like a condensed version of the very creditable 28–point plan they presented a year ago next month.

Something is afoot, it seems to me. I see a thought-through strategy in all this. I see renewed determination on Trump’s part.

Trump is out of the closet at last — and perfectly accurate — as he asserts that Zelensky is the principal impediment to a settlement accord and, so, should be either removed from office or forced to accept defeat and recognize Russia’s legitimate interests.

Trump’s new push to bring the Ukraine crisis to a close, to be clear on this point, is not a betrayal of the Ukrainian people. It is just the opposite.

There are a lot of reasons to question how far Trump will get either in ending the war or restoring relations with Russia to a livable détente. But if he maintains the present momentum, we may be watching the beginning of the endgame in Ukraine.

This is a “may,” conditional verb required. But it is this prospect that has all the warmongers in the MICIMATT complex in a dither.

Strange it will be if a president so wrong about so much manages to achieve the peace he is after. But maybe the Tom Friedmans and the Tom Nichols and the rest of their kind are useful as a mirror.

Maybe the extent of their panic is a measure of the Trumpster’s chances of success this time around.

Social media platforms in Germany will be required to ensure 20% of news feed journalistic content is 'diversity-certified' by the Government under draconian new laws designed to combat the 'far Right', says Eugyppius.

The post Social Media Platforms Required to Boost “Diversity-Promoting” Content Under New German Legislation appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

Italian authorities are examining whether foreign interference helped intensify violent protests across the country, as Defence Minister Guido Crosetto warns that social media is being used as an instrument of hybrid warfare. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has introduced emergency security measures and deployed additional troops to Milan, while further demonstrations are planned for Saturday, 24 October.

Italy is investigating the possibility that foreign actors, including Russian operatives, helped amplify the violent unrest that swept Milan and other Italian cities on 17–18 October. The inquiry introduces a national security dimension to demonstrations initially driven by rising living costs, dissatisfaction with public services and broader economic grievances.

According to information disclosed about the government’s intelligence inquiries, officials working under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni have requested assessments of whether foreign provocateurs contributed to the disorder. No public evidence has established that Moscow organised the violence, and Meloni’s office has declined to comment on the reported intelligence discussions.

The developments follow EU Today’s earlier coverage of the Milan disturbances, which documented extensive looting, attacks on police and the detention of hundreds of young people, many of them minors. Since then, Rome has moved beyond emergency consultations, approving legislation that expands police powers and introduces tougher criminal penalties for violent demonstrations.

On Saturday, 24 October, Italian security forces are preparing for another wave of protests, with additional military personnel, drones and specialist police units deployed in several major cities. The immediate question is whether the government can prevent further disorder while establishing how much of the unrest was locally organised and whether foreign information operations influenced its development.

Crosetto warns of hybrid warfare through social media

Defence Minister Guido Crosetto introduced the hybrid warfare argument during a Defence Procurement Forum in Rome on Tuesday, 20 October. In remarks recorded by Italian public broadcaster Rai, he described the disturbances as the culmination of a form of conflict being conducted through TikTok, YouTube and other social media platforms.

Crosetto argued that young Italians were undergoing what he called a form of counter-education outside their families and schools, absorbing political attitudes and values increasingly hostile to democratic institutions. He criticised Western governments for failing to recognise the consequences of this process, although he did not publicly present intelligence establishing Russian responsibility for the riots.

His comments also exposed differences within the governing coalition. Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini questioned suggestions of Russian involvement, arguing that the immediate priority was identifying violent groups and preventing their movement into Milan.

Russian information operations under scrutiny

European investigators have identified activity by established Russia-linked disinformation networks, including Operation Overload and Doppelgänger, which have circulated and amplified material concerning the unrest.

These operations have previously used manipulated content, misleading narratives and coordinated online distribution to influence European audiences. In the present case, investigations into the online amplification of the violence have identified foreign exploitation of the disturbances, rather than proof that foreign governments organised them.

The European Commission has consequently declined to initiate emergency intervention against social media platforms, citing insufficient evidence linking foreign manipulation directly to the organisation of the protests.

France has taken a similarly cautious position. President Emmanuel Macron acknowledged that foreign actors had manipulated information after the violence but said there was no established evidence that they caused the disturbances. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot has separately identified hostile narratives originating from Russia, China and Iran.

For European security authorities, the principal investigative question concerns the relationship between genuine domestic grievances and externally coordinated information campaigns. Foreign networks can exploit political divisions without necessarily directing the organisations or individuals involved in street violence.

Meloni introduces tougher security legislation

Meanwhile, Meloni’s government has proceeded with a substantial legislative response. Following cabinet approval on 20 October, Decree-Law No. 190 of 22 October 2026 entered into force on 23 October.

The legislation introduces penalties of two to five years’ imprisonment and fines of €10,000 to €20,000 for specified forms of organised violence during public demonstrations. Those organising or encouraging qualifying violent groups, including through digital communications, face potential prison terms of four to twelve years. It also expands provisions concerning juvenile offenders and preventive policing. The decree must undergo parliamentary consideration within 60 days.

Separately, the Italian Defence Ministry confirmed the deployment of 500 additional soldiers to Milan under Operation Strade Sicure until 31 December. The soldiers will reinforce security around sensitive locations and support existing police operations without acquiring additional judicial policing powers.

New demonstrations test the government’s response

Security arrangements have been intensified ahead of demonstrations scheduled for Saturday, 24 October, in Milan, Rome, Turin, Bologna, Florence and other cities.

According to the latest security preparations, Rome is deploying approximately 1,500 officers, while Milan is preparing a combined police and military presence supported by aerial surveillance.

On Friday, Italian investigators conducted searches targeting approximately 100 people suspected of involvement in the previous weekend’s disturbances, including 51 minors. Authorities are also monitoring online calls for renewed protests, some organised by groups whose leadership and membership remain unclear.

The unrest presents Meloni with two parallel challenges: containing violence and determining whether hostile foreign networks have played a significant role in its escalation. Italy’s investigations may help establish whether the events represent primarily a domestic public-order crisis, the exploitation of existing tensions by foreign actors, or a combination of both.

For Brussels, the outcome could influence future enforcement of the EU’s Digital Services Act and its wider response to foreign information manipulation. For now, the evidence supports concern about Russian amplification of European unrest, but not a definitive conclusion that Moscow orchestrated the riots.

• Skydance announced new leadership for its ad business weeks after the Paramount-WBD merger.
• In a memo to staff, Jay Askinasi, chief revenue officer for advertising, named the leadership team.
• The announcement was the latest leadership shake-up following the merger earlier this month.

Skydance has announced new leadership for its combined advertising business following the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger, according to a memo viewed by Business Insider.

Jay Askinasi, Skydance's chief revenue officer for advertising, outlined the new leadership structure for the "unified Skydance Advertising organization." Following the completion of the $110 billion merger this month, Skydance's portfolio includes Paramount and Paramount+, Warner Bros., HBO and HBO Max, CBS, CNN, and more.

Askinasi said going forward that the leadership team would include:

• Danielle Carney, head of US sales
• Jill Steinhauser, head of ad partnerships
• Christine Hong, head of revenue operations
• Chris Brady, head of Skydance Media Labs
• Ed Romaine, head of ad marketing
• Evan Giamanco, head of product strategy and measurement

Askinasi said Steve Ellis would continue as chief operating officer for advertising, a position he has held at Paramount since 2022, and integration lead. He also said Lee Sears would continue to lead Paramount's international advertising business as part of its leadership team while execs "evaluate the WBD international business and determine the right structure for the new Skydance group."

Askinasi also thanked Ryan Gould, president of ad sales and go-to-market at Warner Bros. Discovery, and Bobby Voltaggio, president of ad sales and platform monetization at Warner Bros. Discovery, and said they would "continue to partner" with him "throughout the fourth quarter."

"This team reflects how we intend to work: with clear ownership, fewer layers, and leaders who are close to the work," Askinasi told staffers in the memo. "We will organize around how clients plan and buy, elevate our strongest IP and creative capabilities, and use shared data and intelligence to make faster, better decisions."

A representative for Skydance did not respond to a request for comment.

Several other leadership moves have been announced since the merger's completion. Another leaked memo on Thursday revealed changes to Skydance's product and tech team, which included the departure of four Warner Bros. Discovery executives.

By Glenn Diesen | October 23, 2026

The very public execution of my professorship and reputation continues in Norway. Today’s media article about me makes three claims that are misleading and/or false.

1) The article dismisses my claim that my research is being criminalized as the journalists merely cite the dismissive comments from the university – no arguments are apparently required.

It is not possible for an academic anymore to analyse the policies of rival powers by assessing their security concerns, as it will be smeared by the government, the government’s NGOs and the media as “legitimizing” the enemy and supporting their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out with the accusation of spreading propaganda and criticised two podcasters for even speaking with me (as I have already been cancelled by the media in Norway). How was this accusation by the Defence Minister substantiated? I had argued that NATO expansion triggered the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister denounced as dangerous “Russian propaganda”, with no need to substantiate his vile accusation. I can cite a sea of evidence and also refer to statements by American and European political leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others to make my case. However, the purpose is not to engage in debate, but to smear, censor, and cancel. By going after an individual academic for challenging official truths, the government has already claimed a monopoly on the truth. Academics should have their arguments scrutinised and criticised, but these are severe personal attacks from the government without the possibility of even defending myself. How is this not criminalising the research of an academic?

I cannot even speak at any events in Norway without the event being cancelled. The last event I agreed to speak at was because I shared the stage with the former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper had the event at a church cancelled, and when the backup location did not also cancel, the journalist simply printed in the paper that it had been cancelled so people would not show up. Is this normal? I must use my allotted holiday days to attend conferences because any event I attend can be presented as “controversial,” and then the NGOs and journalists will go after the reputation of the university. Is this normal? Every newspaper article about me merely refers to me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without ever assigning meaning to these labels or presenting my argument.

I have argued, much like former CIA director Burns, that if the West attempts to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then there would be war and Ukraine would be destroyed. This is considered a “pro-Russian” argument. Arguing that we should respect the will of most Ukrainians who want negotiations to end the war is also considered a “pro-Russian” argument, while in contrast, boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for the conscription of Ukrainian women is “pro-Ukrainian”.

2) To avoid addressing any of my arguments, the journalists go on to uncritically cite personal attacks against me, pointing out that I have been called a propagandist by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. This is a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was set up by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to manipulate the civil society of other states. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has been relentless in its smears on social media to have me fired, writing hit pieces in the media, pushing to cancel my speaking events, writing a letter to my university, and even posting a picture of my house on social media. This is a governmental “human rights organisation” that cites human rights concerns to build the case for war.

3) Lastly, to further avoid addressing my actual arguments, they simply cite the fact that arguments I made at a debate last year have been “wholly or partially debunked” by a fact-check. The state-run media (NRK) invited the state-run military defence institute (FFI) to fact-check three of my claims. What claims did they “debunk”?

My first claim was that only 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker argued that the number went up by the middle of 2014 (after Russia responded by seizing Crimea), which is a completely meaningless comment intended to muddy the waters, as my argument was about the previous era.

My second claim was that Zelensky had argued in an interview with The Economist in March 2022 that there were some Western countries that would like a long war with Russia to weaken a strategic rival, even if it would result in the destruction of Ukraine. The fact-checker argued that not all Western countries wanted a long war and that it was not an official policy. I never claimed it was an official policy, as it was primarily the US and UK pushing for a long war.

My third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-checker claimed this was incorrect and suggested that it could only be based on one statement by David Arakhamia. The fact-checker did not want to mention that both mediators also confirmed it: Turkey’s foreign minister and the former Israeli prime minister both said that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal, but the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians. Zelensky’s former adviser Arestovych confirmed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador Chaly, who participated in the negotiations, confirmed that Putin was willing to do almost anything to end the war. The former head of the German armed forces confirmed that Boris Johnson sabotaged it, and Boris Johnson himself wrote articles warning about a “bad peace” and arguing for “strategic patience.” I am being fact-checked by war propagandists.

Unfortunately, none of my arguments matter because in Norway there is no debate and no interest in any arguments. Reality means nothing anymore as war narratives must be defended against inconvenient truths. I used to be naïve and think that the endless smears were caused by misunderstanding, as I had simply not been able to convey my arguments properly. However, the endless articles with smears and labels are deliberate lies and deceptions.

Who could have predicted that age-gating large sections of the internet in a crusade to shield children's eyeballs from vaguely defined "harmful content" would have disastrous consequences and wouldn't ultimately protect kids? Apparently, the United Kingdom's online regulator, Ofcom, couldn't. 

On Thursday, Ofcom released a report assessing whether the government should make changes to the content categories of the 2023 Online Safety Act, a set of laws which require companies operating in the U.K. to prevent children from "accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content and provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they do arise." The act's "child safety regime" (Ofcom's words) went fully into effect in 2025, when porn websites in the country began checking IDs. Unfortunately, as Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown has pointed out, the age-verification rule has impacted far more than adult websites. Already, the Online Safety Act has age-gated a wide range of content, including war news, the "NoFap" subreddit, and a historic art image, creating a mass chilling effect online. 

Ofcom's report, however, says little about these age-gating concerns for adults, and its own findings highlight the act's underwhelming results. In the report, Ofcom notes that "Most children in the UK say they have encountered at least one piece of harmful content online in a four-week period." It adds that "at a total level there was no significant change in the proportion of children encountering harmful content over the first nine months after the children's safety duties came into force in July 2025." So, it appears the act is requiring adults to fork over their IDs to access a wide range of content, some of which is innocuous, while playing a never-ending and unsuccessful game of whack-a-mole trying to eliminate "harmful" online content from kids' feeds. 

Instead of suggesting to repeal the Online Safety Act because it does not seem to be working or because it imperils online freedom, Ofcom's report proposes to broaden the law's scope. The regulator recommends adding "body stigma content and depression content, currently identified by Ofcom as kinds of non-designated content, to the category of priority content that is harmful to children." Priority content is defined as "content that services must protect/minimise the risk of children in age groups judged to be at risk of harm from encountering." In other words, online platforms could have more reasons to potentially age-gate, block, or avoid publishing out of fear of violating the law. 

The report does not address the U.K. government's plans to ban children under the age of 16 from accessing social media, and Ofcom says it will soon publish an assessment of "what highly effective age assurance looks like" for determining whether someone is 16 or older. But if the social media ban unfolds anything like it did in Australia, where kids are easily circumventing it, it is likely to flop, just as the Online Safety Act has.

The post The U.K.'s Online Safety Act Has Been a Failure. Regulators Want To Broaden It Anyway. appeared first on Reason Magazine.