❌

Reading view

Curfews imposed in French cities as rebellion against austerity grows nationwide

Mass mobilizations against austerity policies and their effects are not winding down in France. On Saturday, October 17, roughly 800,000 people joined protests across more than 1,700 assembly points, according to union figures – amplifying demands tabled over a month of student protests and demanding urgent action on the cost of living crisis.

In the aftermath of the protests, the government expanded local authorities’ powers to introduce curfews. This led to overnight movement limitation orders introduced in several cities, including central parts of Paris, Lille, Lyon, and Nice. Many of the curfews target young people in particular, reflecting institutional concern about the success of their recent mobilizations.

Over the past weeks, students launched a wave of school strikes and occupations, resisting the erosion of education services under successive neoliberal governments. Their movement drew support from trade unions and progressive political forces, who joined students on the streets to pressure the Lecornu administration to change course and prioritize public services and labor rights over armament. 

Read more: One barricade after another: How protesters marched on the garrisoned heart of India’s capital

Rallies and marches reinforced the student movement’s demands for accessible, equitable higher education, alongside trade unions’ calls for higher wages. 

They also drew links to other historic moments of mobilization, including the struggle for Algeria’s liberation. Many groups taking part echoed the anniversary of the 1961 demonstration that ended in the massacre of hundreds of people protesting for independence.

Police violence continues

Teachers, families, and elected officials also joined, for a practical reason: to shield students from the law enforcement violence unleashed on their mobilization. 

Saturday’s protests were again met with police violence, with officers relying – unsuccessfully – on tear gas and water cannons to disperse crowds. Serious injuries and cases of severe police brutality were reported throughout the day.

After repeated repression, and with neither the government nor President Emmanuel Macron offering credible solutions to protesters’ grievances, protests turned into riots. While those close to social movements emphasized the events were triggered by years of cuts and unimpeded attacks on workers’ rights, the middle and upper classes were indignant.

Recent protests in France have a decisively antifascist character. Protester’s sign reads: “Always angry, never fascist.” Source: Manon Aubry/Facebook

Macron channeled their reaction in his post-protest speech. He declared those responsible for the looting must be punished, while promising more “dialogue” and offering a mild acknowledgment of people’s concerns over fuel, food, and other essentials. 

“There are people out there who rightfully feel that the price of fuel is too high,” the president said – before shifting responsibility elsewhere. He said rising prices were the result “of what is happening in the Persian Gulf – a war that France was not part of.” 

The speech landed poorly at home and abroad. The Iranian government, for one, has repeatedly called out Macron for applying double standards between protests in West Asia and France, emphasizing that the French president had expressed support for US plans in Iran and that ongoing mobilizations were a logical outcome of the policies he endorsed. 

Students reject Macron’s response

In France, protesters called out Macron for failing – yet again – to identify a concrete way out of the situation facing the country. 

“Since the beginning of this movement, high school and university students have been met with nothing but contempt and police batons in response to their demands,” the university students’ union Union Étudiante wrote. “Yet we have put forward a clear set of demands, widely supported by everyone who took to the streets on October 17.” 

Read more: Madrid teachers and students launch strike to defend public schools

“He did not utter a single word about the high school and university students maimed in the crackdown,” the organization added. “He said nothing at all about the real violence committed on Saturday,” referring to approximately 2,300 arrests made on that day alone – and dozens of young people who were seriously injured over the past weeks.

“It is not a matter of engaging in endless dialogue, but of responding concretely to the needs of high school and university students: income, housing, food services, healthcare, study conditions, access to degrees, and an end to repression.”

Lecornu attempts to blame left for chaos

Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu’s reaction to the protests drew an equally negative response from progressive forces, especially after he suggested left movements were responsible for chaos and violence.

“What a pathetic politician,” wrote presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon. “He is responsible for the chaos – chaos he methodically prepared, whether through sheer incompetence or a deliberate ‘strategy of the worst’ aimed at conjuring up a ‘party of order’ that would make people forget his failure on the public finances.”

  •  

A eleição das Big Techs

Quer receber os textos desta coluna em primeira mão no seu e-mail? Assine a newsletter Xeque na Democracia, enviada toda segunda-feira, 12h. Para receber as próximas edições, inscreva-se aqui.

“Wow”, tuitou Elon Musk, dono do X, depois que as apostas no site Polymarket passaram a favorecer Flávio Bolsonaro na disputa contra Lula, demonstrando quem é seu favorito nas eleições brasileiras. O advogado Martin de Lucca, tuitou: “Primeiro eles cancelaram o X. Depois cancelaram o Rumble. Recentemente, até cancelaram o Polymarket. O tiro saiu espetacularmente pela culatra”, escreveu Lucca, que advoga para a Truth Social, rede de Donald Trump, e para a Rumble, rede social de direita que teve investimento milionário de JD Vance e de Peter Thiel, depois da vantagem de Flávio no primeiro turno. “Que bela manhã, né Brasil?”. 

JD Vance reuniu-se com Flávio Bolsonaro em maio deste ano, e com André Marinho, filho do coordenador de campanha bolsonarista, em abril. Seu aliado e fiador, Peter Thiel, esteve em São Paulo apenas duas semanas depois, em 30 de abril, com uma comitiva de pelo menos 15 executivos, segundo revelou o jornalista Paulo Motoryn. De acordo com o site Amado Mundo, a rede Rockbridge Network, fundada por JD Vance, mantém um representante integrante dentro da sede de campanha de Flávio Bolsonaro em São Paulo, e enviou um plano de trabalho que incluía a criação de um Conselho de Tecnologia para assessorar sua campanha, segundo o Intercept. 

Mark Zuckerberg, em janeiro do ano passado, nomeou o Brasil – sem nomear – ao afirmar que “os países latino-americanos têm tribunais secretos que podem ordenar empresas para silenciosamente derrubar [posts]” e que se uniria ao governo de Donald Trump para lutar contra essas ordens secretas – a referência eram ordens do STF depois da tentativa de Golpe de Estado em 2023. 

Os donos das Big Techs estão acompanhando de perto as eleições brasileiras. Afinal, sabem que elas serão cruciais para definir como será o futuro dos seus negócios. 

O caso mais notório de interferência, até agora, tem sido a Meta – empresa que mais faturou com impulsionamento de campanhas, R$282 milhões. Mesmo assim, funcionários da empresa reclamaram em canais internos da inação dos desenvolvedores lotados nos EUA em reverter o banimento da conta de anúncios da campanha de Lula no Instagram, em 9 de outubro. Os americanos fizeram corpo mole em vez de permitir condições iguais às do adversário, que seguia impulsionando seus conteúdos. 

Mas esse foi apenas um dos eventos. Na semana passada, a IA da Meta permitia que qualquer pessoa criasse imagens pró-Flávio e contra o Lula – acusando o PT de corrupto, por exemplo. Se o mesmo pedido era feito sobre o candidato do PL, a IA respondia que não podia gerar a imagem. A Meta reconheceu que sua IA permitiu a criação de imagens favorecendo Flávio e que “a conta de anúncios da campanha de Lula foi desativada por engano por pouco mais de 1 hora, e não por razões políticas”.

Antes disso, a Meta suspendeu por algumas horas a conta do canal Revelando Brasil no Instagram, que tem publicado vídeos documentais sobre casos envolvendo Flávio Bolsonaro, quando este se tornava o principal assunto das redes, uma semana antes do primeiro turno. Até agora não houve explicação do porquê.    

A tendência para o lado da campanha do filho de Jair incomodou até mesmo o TSE, que na semana passada decidiu que a Big Tech tem que agir com isonomia sobre conteúdos das duas campanhas – e que prove que está fazendo isso. Em caso de descumprimento, a Meta terá que pagar R$ 500 mil por dia.

O Ministério da Justiça acionou a Agência Nacional de Proteção de Dados (ANPD) e o Ministério Público Federal para abrir uma investigação contra a Meta, e a Procuradoria Federal dos Direitos do Cidadão do MPF já abriu um procedimento para investigar a empresa. Além disso, a deputada Érika Hilton (PSOL-SP) está coletando assinaturas para uma CPI na Câmara dos Deputados para investigar se está havendo interferência das Big Techs nas eleições. 

A mobilização chamou a atenção da imprensa internacional – o que forçou a Meta a publicar um comunicado negando tentar interferir nas eleições. A empresa ainda saiu com essa: “Há muito tempo, a Meta alerta que as regras rígidas do Brasil para conteúdo digital aumentam o risco de aplicação excessiva e ameaçam a liberdade de expressão. Desde 2025, essas regras ampliaram a possível responsabilidade das plataformas por conteúdo e anúncios gerados por terceiros” – ou seja, a culpa dela estar prejudicando a campanha petista é da regulação.  

É aí que está o fio da meada. Faz sentido para a Meta e também para outras Techs investirem no fim do governo Lula porque o Brasil é o fiel da balança no sul global em termos de regulação do mundo digital. 

Durante o governo Lula, elas contabilizaram muitas derrotas: o banimento do Twitter pelo STF; a decisão do STF de responsabilizá-las legalmente por conteúdo ilegal; o Eca Digital, conhecido como “Lei Felca”; a decisão do Cade de abrir uma investigação conta o Google por concorrência desleal ao jornalismo ao lucrar com o conteúdo sem pagar por ele, além de outras decisões da Secretaria Nacional do Consumidor (Senacom), do MJ, e da ANPD – por exemplo, a agência obrigou a Meta a informar os usuários e pedir permissão sobre uso de conteúdos de usuários no Facebook, WhatsApp, e Instagram para treino no IA. Recentemente, as “lives” do Discord foram banidos depois do suicídio de uma menina de 13 anos.  

Flávio e a bancada digital já avisaram que querem reverter todas essas regras. Flávio planeja um “revogaço” dos decretos de Lula que regulamentaram a decisão do STF sobre a responsabilização das plataformas, que estabeleceu a ANPD como agência reguladora. A “bancada da liberdade de expressão digital”, que tem nomes como Carol di Toni, Filipe Barros e Carlos Jordy, do PL, quer que o Congresso defina as responsabilidades da ANPD.     

Só que, no Brasil, a discussão sobre redes sociais e Big Techs ultrapassou, e muito, a esfera do Congresso. É o que mostra o caso da interferência da Meta nas eleições. Arrisco dizer que o Brasil é o único país em que a sociedade tem clareza dos riscos representados pelas Big Techs. Não se trata de um partido, um político ou um punhado de ONGs: é um país se mobilizando para conter os danos da tecno-oligarquia. 

Hoje às 17h, a pressão vai aumentar. Organizações da sociedade civil e movimentos sociais convocam a sociedade para um ato pacífico na sede da Meta, na Faria Lima, em São Paulo.

E agora, volto ao início da minha coluna. Se as Big Techs estão de olho nas nossas eleições, o mesmo é verdade para a crescente comunidade de especialistas, legisladores, jornalistas e ativistas que se importam com a batalha mundial da humanidade contra essa oligarquia. Com as eleições, o epicentro desta luta volta a ser o Brasil – e isso não vai terminar no domingo, vença quem vencer. O Brasil seguirá tendo um dos movimentos atuantes e mais robustos de pressão e organização cívica para emparedar as Big Techs – um movimento, ouso dizer, irreversível.  

  •  

Trump defends Russia sanctions waiver, says he does not want to drive Moscow from talks

Trump WEF

US President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on 18 October that he did not want to “drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.” He also wrote: “Signing that document at this time will do that, and I can sign it later, or any time that I want!”

Trump was referring to sanctions and tariffs under the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, which he waived in an executive order on 16 October, days before the measures were due to take effect. The waiver suspends additional economic penalties intended to pressure Moscow over its war against Ukraine, while leaving earlier US sanctions in place. The decision came weeks before the 3 November midterms, in which Republicans are defending slim majorities in both chambers, and analysts said the penalties could have pushed up oil prices for Americans already paying more, largely because of the US-Israeli war with Iran, Reuters reported.

Trump says Zelenskyy could have made a better deal two years ago

A week before the waiver, Trump had announced a deal for Russia to increase diesel supplies to global markets. The Treasury also issued a license, valid until 7 April 2027, permitting certain transactions in Russian-origin diesel.

In the Truth Social post, Trump accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of targeting Russian diesel refineries, saying the strikes were “seriously hurting the world diesel markets, including those in the United States.” Kyiv had paused its refinery strikes for three days at Washington’s request after Trump declared an energy ceasefire on 11 October, which Russia never confirmed, then resumed them. Since then, Russia has struck Ukraine’s energy sector 76 times, Zelenskyy said on 18 October.

kyiv attack
Explore further

Kyiv gets no warning of the first of two Russian ballistic waves, hours after Zelenskyy said US alerts were back

Trump wrote that Zelenskyy “doesn’t want to end this war, and probably never did,” and that he “could have made a better deal two years ago than he can now.”

“His country is in shambles, a large portion of his land is lost, his oceans and seas are gone, and his male population is low, wounded, and/or dead,” Trump added.

He also said Russia was “doing very little, if anything, to help” Iran and that he wanted to keep it that way.

A day earlier, Trump said he had not made a final decision

On 17 October, Trump told reporters at Mar-a-Lago that he had not announced his final decision. “A lot of you don’t know what my decision is yet, but we’ll figure it out, and you’ll figure it out,” he said, Reuters reported.

“I think the president wants to take the 60-day period of time to sort of analyze what imposing both sanctions and tariffs will mean to the global economy and even to the US economy,” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters before departing for Uzbekistan the same day.

Zelenskyy calls the waiver a pity as Republicans split

Zelenskyy called it a “pity” that Trump had waived sanctions under a law named for the late Senator Lindsey Graham, who “really believed in Ukraine.” He said he hoped Trump would change his decisions, NBC News reported.

Discussing the diesel deal on NBC’s Meet the Press, Zelenskyy said US oil prices had risen because shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was blocked, not because of Ukraine.

month before diesel waiver trump’s envoys had already pitched kyiv russian gas · post jared kushner steve witkoff ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy 7 2026 presidentgovua джаред кушнер стівен віткофф володимир
Explore further

A month before the diesel waiver, Trump’s envoys had already pitched Kyiv on Russian gas, NYT says

On 17 October, Zelenskyy told journalists that “the decision to undo all of this, to block all of it, seems wrong to me” and that it “definitely helps only the Russians.” His remarks appeared in Ukrainian on his official Telegram channel.

“Sanctions relief will continue. I think the diesel deal and the move regarding the Lindsey Graham Act are not the end of it. Unfortunately,” Zelenskyy said.

On 19 October, Zelenskyy wrote that partners had again given no warning of Russia’s overnight ballistic attack and that blocking missiles for Ukraine’s air defense while Russia gets sanctions eased or postponed amounts to partners denying reality.

Republican Senator James Lankford defended Trump’s decision on NBC’s Meet the Press, saying the president was “choosing the American people first.”

Senator Darline Graham, Lindsey Graham’s sister, whom Trump has endorsed for a full term, said at a campaign stop on 17 October that she would “choose to keep the pressure on Russia.”

“I don’t trust Putin and I don’t trust Russia,” Darline Graham said.

She did not directly criticize Trump but said she would not have made that choice, Reuters reported.

  •  

Kyiv gets no warning of the first of two Russian ballistic waves, hours after Zelenskyy said US alerts were back

kyiv attack

Russia attacked Kyiv with ballistic missiles in two waves overnight on 18–19 October. Information from partners did not arrive before the first wave, at around 23:00, Air Force spokesperson Yurii Ihnat said on national television. A warning came before the second wave, at around 03:00, but the window was short, he told NV.

Hours earlier, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told NBC that US warnings of Russian ballistic launches were working again after three days without them, and that only the United States has that intelligence. Those warnings have for years given Ukrainian authorities several minutes to sound alarms and let civilians reach shelters before ballistic missiles hit.

“Once again, a Russian ballistic attack in several waves overnight, and once again there was no warning from partners,” Zelenskyy wrote. It was at least the third ballistic strike on Kyiv in a week to begin without warning from partners, following attacks on 12 October and 13 October.

Metro station damaged on Kyiv’s left bank

One person was killed and eight injured in Kyiv, Ukrainian Prime Minister Serhii Koretskyi said. A strike damaged a metro station on Kyiv’s left bank, and debris broke the rails beside it, Mayor Vitali Klitschko said. City authorities said the damaged station was above ground, closed Chernihivska and Lisova stations, and said red-line trains would run only between Akademmistechko and Darnytsia. The attack also damaged a 25-story building, a medical facility, and the Cosmo Multimall shopping center in the Solomianskyi district, NV reported, and Zelenskyy said a school was hit too.

The attack also damaged one of Ukraine’s main ice arenas, on Shalett Street in Kyiv, which hosts Ukrainian championship hockey games and youth training, hockey Telegram channel Flamingo reported. Parts of the facade, metal structures, and roof were damaged, but the ice surface showed no significant visible damage, according to preliminary information, Suspilne reported.

Damage in 11 oblasts, three missing in Irpin

Koretskyi said energy and infrastructure were the main targets, with damage in 11 oblasts. Russia also hit warehouses of medicines, railway stations, shops, and homes, he said. In Kyiv Oblast, Russian strikes injured six people in Irpin, including three children, and three more were missing, oblast head Tymur Tkachenko said. In Kharkiv Oblast, six people were injured, including two children, Koretskyi said. In Rivne Oblast, four people were injured, and one of them was hospitalized, regional police reported.

Zelenskyy said that more than 10 energy facilities were damaged and at least 550,000 families lost power. Ukrenergo reported new outages in 10 oblasts: Volyn, Zhytomyr, Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad, Kharkiv, Odesa, and Mykolaiv. In Volyn Oblast, about 15 jet-powered Shahed-type drones targeted the region, and around 66,000 customers were without power on the morning of 19 October, oblast head Roman Romaniuk said. Kovel, Manevychi, and Lutsk were hit hardest, and no casualties were reported. In Vinnytsia Oblast, a critical infrastructure facility in Koziatyn was damaged, and power there would stay unstable for some time, city council secretary Iryna Repalo said, Suspilne reported.

Zelenskyy said Russia fired 16 ballistic missiles at Kyiv and Kyiv Oblast. The Air Force reported that Russia also used Iskander-K cruise missiles and 269 drones, and that by 09:00 air defenses had shot down or suppressed four Iskander-K cruise missiles and 243 drones. Its preliminary count did not list any ballistic missiles among the intercepted targets.

Rubio denies any pause and points to a software problem in Ukraine’s warning system

On 19 October, Rubio told reporters in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, that “there’s been no pause” in intelligence-sharing with Ukraine, Reuters reported. He said he did not know where Zelenskyy was getting such claims and that he should focus on ending the war. He also said he did not know whether a failure had happened the previous night, but that a few nights earlier there had been a software problem with “their early warning system,” and that US European Command was looking into the strikes, The Guardian reported. US officials had not mentioned a software glitch before, and in at least one case Ukraine was told that bad weather over southern Russia had hidden launch preparations, the newspaper noted.

Ihnat said Ukrainian specialists and their partners were working to establish why information about the first launch had not arrived. He added that similar gaps had occurred during earlier attacks.

Zelenskyy wrote that when missile supplies for Ukraine’s air defense are blocked while Russia gets sanctions relief or delays, “this is, unfortunately, a denial of reality on the part of partners.” A night earlier, Russia had hit Ukraine’s energy system again, while Ukrainian drones set fire to St. Petersburg’s oil terminal despite Washington’s pressure to stop refinery strikes.

  •  

Trump’s Threats to Annihilate Iran

Of all of the things that Donald Trump has said publicly since returning to the White House, his threats to annihilate Iran are arguably the worst. This is not only because the repeated statements are deeply immoral and illegal – deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime – but because they represent the kind […]
  •  
❌