Who Controls Your Feed During a Crisis? France's October 2026 Crackdown Shows a Global Pattern

On the morning of Tuesday, 20 October 2026, France's digital affairs minister, Anne Le Hénanff, summoned TikTok, Meta, Google, Snapchat, X and other platforms to an emergency meeting (L'Informé, WIRED). The agenda was not future legislation. It was what the platforms would do before the weekend, when online posts were already promoting an "Act II" round of demonstrations for 24 October.

France was coming out of its worst civil unrest in years. Protests that began in late September, when students blockaded entrances to high schools over dilapidated facilities and teacher shortages, had widened into a national movement over living costs and threadbare public services (AFP Fact Check). Demonstrations on Saturday, 17 October, turned to rioting and looting in several cities (RTVE Verifica). By the time ministers sat down with the platforms, authorities had announced more than 2,400 arrests and more than 1,500 shops looted or damaged, and Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez had conceded that police "lost control" in some areas (The Meridiem, SuperIntelligence News).

The demands were specific: act faster against calls to violence, rein in livestreams from burning streets, and curb the altered or AI-generated imagery shaping how millions understood the crisis (L'Informé, SuperIntelligence News). A day earlier, another minister, Serge Papin, had secured a signed agreement from Vinted, eBay, Amazon, LeBonCoin, Meta and TikTok to police the resale of looted goods and report back within 48 hours (SuperIntelligence News).

This was France's week. The method is everyone's. When unrest breaks out now, the second front is not the street; it is the recommendation system that decides what tens of millions of people see. Governments want dangerous content contained; platforms want to avoid blame; users get no notice of any of it and no receipt afterward. Every rung of that sequence, from public blame to summoned executives to formal agreements or court orders to outright blocking, has precedent in Britain, Germany, India, Brazil or the United States. What France did between 17 and 20 October is a case study in how far a democratic government can move in one week, and where the rules still stop it.

What did France actually ask the platforms to do?

Two meetings, two days, two halves of the internet.

On Monday, 19 October, Papin, the minister for small and medium-sized enterprises, met marketplace operators. Under an agreement he announced on X, the companies committed to monitor advertisements for goods stolen during the riots, forward reports to investigators, and deliver a first compliance report within 48 hours, with Le Monde identifying the participants as Vinted, eBay, Amazon, LeBonCoin, Meta and TikTok (SuperIntelligence News). The legal footing is straightforward. French criminal law already punishes concealing stolen goods with up to five years in prison and a €375,000 fine, and the platforms agreed to act against listings that are illegal in themselves (The Meridiem). Dutch police warned that looted merchandise could cross borders into online marketplaces across Europe (The Meridiem).

On Tuesday morning, Le Hénanff pressed the social platforms, among them TikTok, Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger), Google's YouTube, Snapchat and X, on what they were doing against calls to violence, and data was handed to law enforcement (L'Informé). According to an account citing the broadcaster BFM, the government reminded the companies that they were expected to moderate aggressively during an active public-order crisis, livestreams included, when material could encourage violence or help people defy a curfew (SuperIntelligence News). Officials were also alarmed by synthetic imagery: searches on TikTok for "blocus", the French word for blockade, were surfacing videos that appeared altered or AI-generated, including viral images of a protester in a Pink Panther costume, alongside posts promoting the 24 October follow-up (The Meridiem).

What France did not do matters as much. The government announced no blocking orders, published no takedown demands and invoked no emergency power over protest speech. L'Informé's headline after the meeting described the government "demanding accounts" with "no blocking in sight" (L'Informé). Some international coverage framed the week as France ordering real-time blocking of protest content (The Meridiem). The gap between those two descriptions is part of the story: what happened in that room was pressure, persuasion and reputational threat. The binding instruments were aimed at commerce, not speech.

There is also a European layer. The same Monday, the European Commission said it was in close contact with Arcom, France's media regulator and Digital Services Coordinator, and would meet French authorities again that day. Spokesperson Thomas Regnier urged platforms to mitigate the risk that their algorithms amplify incitement to violence, stressed that peaceful demonstrators must be distinguished from those committing violence, and announced no formal proceedings (European Commission press briefing, 19 October 2026). Under the Digital Services Act, the Commission, not Paris, holds direct supervision of the largest platforms' risk duties. That limits what a French minister can formally demand of TikTok, and leaves open everything a minister can informally ask.

What platforms did, and what stayed up

The documented actions are modest, and the distance between government pressure and platform compliance is visible.

TikTok attached an "evolving situation" warning to searches for "blocus", so that anyone looking for blockade content saw a notice about the unrest first. The videos themselves, including the Pink Panther imagery, remained online (The Meridiem, SuperIntelligence News).

eBay confirmed it removes flagged content and can permanently suspend seller accounts, while noting that response times depend on the nature of a report and the verification it requires (The Meridiem).

Beyond that, the public record is thin. No platform has disclosed removing protest posts at scale, suspending accounts, restricting livestreams or changing what users are recommended about the unrest. That absence cuts two ways. It may mean the platforms did little; it may equally mean they did things they were not required to disclose. Under the DSA, very large platforms must file statements of reasons for moderation decisions in the EU to a public database, but those statements record the platform's own justification, not which actions followed a call from a ministry (DSA Transparency Database). The first checkable artifacts will be the compliance reports due within 48 hours of the 19 October agreement, and any steps Arcom or the Commission take next.

The fakes that traveled further than the real footage

The unrest produced genuine footage of genuine damage. Several of the most widely shared posts were fabricated, and they distorted the crisis in several directions at once.

AFP traced widely shared clips to events that predated the protests by months and years. Footage of overturned, burning vehicles actually showed clashes in Paris in December 2022, after a racist attack at a Kurdish cultural centre. A crowd dancing around a burning car near the Eiffel Tower was celebrating Paris Saint-Germain's Champions League win on 30 May 2026, not protesting. By 9 October, with the school blockades spreading and more than 500 people already arrested at that stage, the recycled clips were circulating with captions presenting them as current (AFP Fact Check).

Recycling was only one technique. Spain's RTVE fact-checkers found that a video of a woman dragging a guillotine, shared more than 19,000 times as evidence of revolutionary ferment, was filmed at a Paris protest against austerity in September 2025, which drew 500,000 demonstrators nationwide by the authorities' count. A photograph of a burning building between an EU flag and a Palestinian flag, shared more than 25,000 times with claims that France was burning "in the name of Palestine", was AI-generated: the analysis tool Hive assessed it as 99.9 percent likely to be synthetic, and OpenAI's own detection identified it as made with its tools. A video showing Palestinian flags atop the Eiffel Tower was, according to Meta's own detection tool, made with Meta's generative AI, while Hive found fragments more than 90 percent likely to have been manipulated (RTVE Verifica).

The most damaging fabrication targeted people rather than events. Two AI-generated images purporting to show an elderly couple in their 80s being stripped and robbed on 17 October drew millions of views, spread by far-right accounts and amplified by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, with captions about Muslims, Jews and a country that had "fallen"; some posts claimed the couple were Jewish and compared the supposed attack to a 1941 pogrom. The France 24 Observers confirmed the images' synthetic origin through invisible watermarks and traced them to a montage posted late on 17 October by the pro-Israel account Infos-Israel.news. One image even reached the media: French outlet Sirenes reposted it, and Israeli channel C14 ran it under the headline "Islam Conquers Europe" (France 24).

The claim beneath the fake images was not invented from nothing. The journalist Dominique Rizet reported on BFM, citing a police source, that an elderly couple had been attacked in Paris that evening, and described the information as confirmed. When Libération's fact-checking service, CheckNews, asked the Paris prosecutor's office about 48 hours later, it said it had no report of any such attack. The assault remains unverified. The images are confirmed fakes, made with OpenAI tools, doing work that no real attack needed to do (France 24).

Officials spent the week pressing platforms over livestreams and protest imagery, yet several of the items that traveled furthest were false, synthetic or recycled. Asked on 19 October whether foreign information manipulation operations had been detected, the Commission spokesperson did not confirm that any had been (European Commission press briefing). On the available record, the manipulation was scattered and opportunistic rather than the work of a confirmed foreign operation, which makes it harder to attribute and easier to exploit.

Where this story sits

5 related pieces

Hover a story · click to read

1. No. 5 · Aug 25, 2026Global Compute Token Ledger: Architecture for Enforcing Prepaid Compute Everywhere
2. No. 15 · Aug 27, 2026Russia's Dawei Bet: A Megaport on the Front Line of Myanmar's Civil War
3. No. 24 · Sep 2, 2026Whole Servers, Hidden Compute: Taiwan and the New AI Export Problem
4. No. 62 · Oct 7, 2026The Authorized Leak: When Lawful Access to National ID Systems Becomes the Vulnerability
5. No. 20 · Aug 30, 2026Can the DSRB Get Startup Tech to the Battlefield Faster Than the MoD?

What law lets France lean on platforms

No French statute allows a minister to order protest posts down at scale, and French judges have cut such attempts back before. The 2020 Avia law, which required platforms to remove manifestly illegal hate speech within 24 hours, was suspended by the Conseil d'État on 18 June 2020 as a disproportionate infringement of freedom of expression. The pressure applied in October 2026 therefore worked through other channels.

Most of them are European. The Digital Services Act, adopted in 2022, designates platforms with at least 45 million monthly EU users as very large online platforms and obliges them to assess and mitigate systemic risks to public security, civic discourse and fundamental rights, including by adjusting how their recommendation systems work (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065). Platforms must enforce their own terms and conditions diligently, objectively and proportionately. Hosting providers must promptly alert law enforcement when they become aware of information suggesting an offence that threatens life or safety, a duty for which the Commission published good practices on 25 September 2026. Member State authorities can issue binding orders for the removal of specific illegal content or for information about specific users, and those orders are reported (European Commission press briefing). Brussels even has a crisis lever of its own in Article 36 of the DSA; what it announced on 19 October was contact and coordination, not formal proceedings.

That framework was the background hum of the Paris meetings. France can demand diligent enforcement of platform rules and rapid cooperation with police, but nothing in the DSA authorizes a minister to direct moderation of lawful protest speech. The Commission's framing of the law made the same point: the DSA's provisions "do not amount to a general prohibition on mobilising people for peaceful demonstrations" and do not "automatically turn controversial political content into unlawful incitement to violence" (European Commission press briefing).

France has run this play informally before. During the 2023 riots that followed the police killing of the teenager Nahel Merzouk, the interior minister summoned Snapchat executives and threatened legal action, while President Emmanuel Macron accused social networks of amplifying the violence. Summoning platforms in a crisis is now standard French practice, and so far it has stopped short of mandates the Conseil d'État would strike down.

And if a European state ever did order the cruder tools, the legal ceiling is well mapped. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in Yıldırım v. Turkey (2012) that blocking an entire platform over one user's content violated free expression, and in Cengiz v. Turkey (2015) that wholesale blocking of YouTube did too. Any French government that moved from pressuring platforms to switching them off would be running against settled Strasbourg case law.

Five countries, one escalating playbook

The pattern has rungs, and countries climb them in order: public blame, summoned executives, demands for faster enforcement, formal agreements or court orders, blocking a platform outright, and, at the top, switching off the network. France climbed the first four in a week and stopped. Others kept climbing.

United Kingdom: pressure written into statute

During the 2011 riots across England, ministers floated cutting off BlackBerry Messenger, then the network favored by many riot organizers, and stepped back. In 2024 the sequence repeated with sharper tools. After the Southport stabbings, false claims about the attacker's identity spread online and riots followed. The government summoned platform executives, Ofcom, the regulator newly empowered by the Online Safety Act 2023, wrote to major platforms demanding they explain how they handled viral falsehoods, and courts began jailing users within weeks, including a woman sentenced to 31 months for a post calling for violence against hotels housing asylum seekers. Britain's version of the pattern is distinctive: parliamentary pressure converts to statute quickly, and the statute then does the pressing.

Germany: the fine-backed model

Germany's NetzDG of 2017 required platforms to remove manifestly unlawful content within 24 hours, backed by fines up to €50 million (NetzDG). The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, David Kaye, warned in his 2018 report to the Human Rights Council that such laws push platforms toward over-removal and hand authoritarian governments a ready template. In 2022, sustained German pressure on Telegram coincided with the removal of dozens of channels used by the Querdenken protest movement, as reported at the time. Germany has since cut NetzDG back to fit alongside the DSA. The sequence remains: pressure first, formalization second, review third.

India: from blocking to blackouts

India runs the top of the ladder. According to Access Now's #KeepItOn coalition, India recorded the most internet shutdowns of any country for the sixth consecutive year in 2023, accounting for 116 of the 144 shutdowns the coalition documented across 29 countries. After India revoked Jammu and Kashmir's autonomy in 2019, the region endured months of blackout, the longest in any democracy. The Supreme Court responded in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) by holding indefinite shutdowns impermissible and demanding proportionality and review. The blocking regime below the network layer is just as active: a 2021 standoff saw the government order Twitter to remove accounts linked to farmer protests, with police visiting its offices when it balked; in 2023 the Karnataka High Court fined X the equivalent of about $60,000 and upheld dozens of government blocking orders affecting thousands of accounts; in 2024, WhatsApp and five other messaging firms went to court in Delhi to challenge rules that would force services to identify the first originator of a message. India shows where the ladder ends: when pressure and blocking are not enough, the state makes the internet itself unavailable.

Brazil: a judge, a platform, 20 million users

After supporters of the defeated president stormed Congress, the presidential palace and the Supreme Court on 8 January 2023, Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered platforms to remove content and channels that organized or praised the attacks, and they largely complied. His enforcement tools were structural rather than improvised. Telegram was blocked nationwide for days in 2022 for ignoring his orders. X was suspended across Brazil from late August to early October 2024 after it refused to name a legal representative, declined to block accounts the judge had ordered blocked and left fines unpaid; service returned only after X complied and paid more than $5 million. Roughly 20 million Brazilian users lost their platform by judicial order, in an electoral dispute. A Senate inquiry pushed by opposition senators accused Moraes of exceeding his powers; his defenders describe the same measures as defense of the constitutional order. Both readings are on the record, and that is the lesson: blocking is now a routine judicial instrument in a democracy, and the fight over its legitimacy is political rather than technical.

United States: jawboning without a statute

The United States has no DSA, no NetzDG and no Online Safety Act. Its instrument is pressure, and its limit is the First Amendment. The doctrine has a name: "jawboning", government persuasion strong enough to change what platforms publish without a formal order. The Supreme Court held in Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963) that a state commission's informal threats against book distributors counted as state censorship even without legal force behind them. In Murthy v. Missouri (2024), the Court confronted a record of Biden administration officials pressing platforms over specific COVID posts, but dismissed the case on standing, leaving the coercion line undrawn. Days later, in Moody v. NetChoice (2024), it held that platform curation is protected editorial activity while insisting each restriction be judged as applied. The practical answer for Americans is therefore split. No European-style mandates are enforceable, yet administrations of both parties keep pressing platforms over content, from COVID claims in 2021 to false hurricane relief rumors in 2024, and the courts have not said where persuasion becomes violation. During a future protest wave or election emergency, the plausible instrument is the Murthy pattern: officials calling platforms about specific content, platforms deciding, courts deciding later.

Can a government steer a feed without censoring it?

The French week supplies a clean demonstration. TikTok did not take down the "blocus" videos the government objected to, which appeared altered or AI-generated. It wrapped them in a warning label and left them searchable. Nothing was censored, strictly speaking, and yet every viewer who searched the term afterward met a warning first. Labels, ranking changes, reduced recommendation of borderline content and interstitial warnings are all levers that keep content technically available while altering how many people ever encounter it. The DSA even lists adjustments to algorithmic recommendations among the mitigations platforms may lawfully use (European Commission press briefing).

Platforms already run crisis machinery of this kind. After the 2019 Christchurch attack was livestreamed on Facebook and copied across platforms for days, Jacinda Ardern and Emmanuel Macron launched the Christchurch Call, and Facebook said it had removed 1.5 million copies of the video in the first 24 hours, blocking 1.2 million at upload. Platforms maintain crisis protocols under those commitments. What France did in October 2026 looked like that same machinery, turned toward a domestic political crisis.

The catch is provenance. When a government issues a removal order, the order can be published, counted and appealed. When a government applies pressure and a platform acts voluntarily, the same result arrives with nothing to review. The DSA's public database records the platform's stated reasons for each moderation decision, not the phone call that preceded it. Annual transparency reports aggregate government orders, but ministerial expectations appear nowhere. Kaye warned in 2018 that states increasingly govern speech through informal pressure precisely because it escapes rights scrutiny, and that platforms over-remove to stay safe. On the evidence of the French week, the honest summary of platform transparency is this: platforms are now quite transparent about what they remove, and still almost entirely opaque about who asked.

Where the line sits, and what protects you

The line is not mysterious. Incitement to violence, organizing looting and content that endangers life are lawful targets of state action across Europe. Mobilizing people for peaceful demonstrations is not, and the Commission said as much on 19 October (European Commission press briefing). The test of any government's conduct in a crisis is whether it keeps that distinction while under pressure to drop it.

Ordinary people are not without recourse, though the recourse is slow.

• In Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights applies, and its court has twice struck down wholesale platform blocking as disproportionate. The DSA adds complaint systems, out-of-court dispute resolution and access to national regulators such as Arcom, plus a public database of moderation reasons anyone can read (DSA Transparency Database).
• In the United States, the First Amendment reaches government action, and Bantam Books remains the anchor for suing over informal coercion, even though Murthy shows how hard standing is to establish.
• In India, the Supreme Court has imposed proportionality and review on shutdowns and blocking.
• Independent measurement polices the crudest tools. Network observatories such as OONI and NetBlocks detect blocking and throttling; no blocking or throttling has been reported in France, where the response stayed at the content layer.
• Fact-checkers did the verification work in real time: AFP, RTVE and France 24 identified the recycled and AI-generated images within days of their spread (AFP Fact Check, RTVE Verifica, France 24).

The limits are just as real. Remedies take months or years while a crisis runs on days. Throttling and ranking changes leave no trace a user can perceive. Most people never learn their post was removed, let alone why, and the statement of reasons in the DSA database does not name the official who prompted it.

Verified, alleged, and still unknown

Established, on the record:

• The emergency meetings took place on 19 and 20 October 2026 with the platforms and marketplaces named above (L'Informé, WIRED).
• A signed marketplace agreement requires monitoring stolen-goods ads, forwarding reports to investigators and a first compliance report within 48 hours (SuperIntelligence News).
• TikTok attached an evolving-situation label to "blocus" searches, and the underlying videos remained online (The Meridiem).
• Authorities announced more than 2,400 arrests and more than 1,500 shops looted or damaged (The Meridiem, SuperIntelligence News).
• The viral elderly-couple images are AI-generated and traceable to a 17 October montage; the recycled riot clips predate the protests (France 24, AFP Fact Check).

Alleged, not established:

• The assault on an elderly couple in Paris on 17 October. Reported by a journalist citing a police source; the prosecutor's office had received no report of it as of 19 October (France 24).
• Foreign information manipulation operations connected to the unrest. The Commission explicitly did not confirm any (European Commission press briefing).
• That the Pink Panther imagery was AI-generated. WIRED's review, as relayed in secondary reporting, found it appeared altered; no forensic confirmation has been published (The Meridiem).
• That France ordered real-time blocking of protest content. French reporting from the meeting found no blocking in sight (L'Informé).

Still unknown:

• Whether platforms removed, throttled or de-ranked protest content at scale during the week.
• What the 48-hour compliance reports contain, and whether the government will publish them.
• Whether Arcom or the Commission opens formal DSA proceedings.
• How platforms will handle the "Act II" demonstrations called for 24 October.

What to watch next

Three tests will tell whether the French model holds: the compliance reports due within 48 hours of 19 October; whatever Arcom and the Commission do with them; and 24 October. Watch two things above all. First, whether any French official moves from pressuring platforms to ordering them, which would hand the Conseil d'État a second Avia-style fight. Second, whether any platform discloses what it changed during the unrest, which nothing currently forces it to do.

France blocked no platform, cut no network and issued no published removal order. Measured against India's blackouts or Brazil's suspension, its response was procedural, restrained and announced in public. That is what makes it the important case. The method travels quietly: blame, summon, press, agree, and most of what follows needs no order at all. What citizens of any democracy still lack is the other half of the record, the receipt showing what was done in their name and in their feed. The paperwork that would tell you whether you were being protected, managed or filtered is the one document no one is required to produce.

Sources and references

1. L'Informé (Marc Rees), "Violences urbaines : le gouvernement demande des comptes à TikTok, Snapchat ou X... sans blocage en vue", 20 October 2026. https://www.linforme.com/tech-telecom/article/violences-urbaines-le-gouvernement-demande-des-comptes-a-tiktok-snapchat-ou-x-sans-blocage-en-vue_11813.html
2. WIRED (Isabella Ward, Anna Desmarais), "French Government Calls Emergency Meetings With Platforms Over Protests", 20 October 2026. https://www.wired.com/story/french-government-calls-emergency-meetings-with-platforms-over-protests/
3. The Meridiem, "France Orders Platforms to Block Protest Content in Real Time", 20 October 2026. https://www.themeridiem.com/policy/2026/10/20/france-orders-platforms-to-block-protest-content-in-real-time
4. SuperIntelligence News, "France platform crackdown over protests and looted goods", 20 October 2026, citing Le Monde, BFM and statements by Serge Papin. https://superintelligencenews.com/applications/france-platform-crackdown-over-protests-and-looted-goods/
5. European Commission midday press briefing (spokesperson Thomas Regnier), 19 October 2026, as documented by 2eu.brussels. https://2eu.brussels/en/news-articles/eu-commission-urges-online-platforms-to-prevent-amplification-of-violence-following-unrest-in-france
6. AFP Fact Check (Devesh Mishra), "Old videos misrepresented as showing damage caused by France school protests", 9 October 2026. https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.D2LR764
7. RTVE Verifica (Blanca Bayo Pérez, Carmen Hernaiz, Paula Mayoral Muñoz), "Desinformación sobre las protestas en Francia: vídeos descontextualizados e imágenes generadas con IA", 19 and 20 October 2026. https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20261019/desinformacion-protestas-francia-videos-imagenes-ia/17273662.shtml
8. France 24 Truth or Fake (Vedika Bahl), "France riots: AI photos falsely depict elderly couple 'stripped and robbed'", 19 October 2026. https://www.france24.com/en/france-riots-ai-photos-falsely-depict-elderly-couple-stripped-and-robbed-1
9. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act), EUR-Lex. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj
10. European Commission, DSA Transparency Database. https://transparency.dsa.ec.europa.eu
11. Conseil d'État (France), suspension decision nos. 390585 and others, 18 June 2020, concerning core provisions of the 2020 law against hateful online content.
12. Online Safety Act 2023 (United Kingdom), chapter 50. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50
13. Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG), Germany. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/netzdg/
14. David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, report A/HRC/38/35 to the Human Rights Council, 2018.
15. Yıldırım v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber), application no. 3111/10, judgment of 6 December 2012.
16. Cengiz and Others v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 1 December 2015.
17. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, judgment of 10 January 2020.
18. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963).
19. Murthy, Surgeon General v. Missouri, U.S. Supreme Court, 26 June 2024.
20. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, U.S. Supreme Court, 1 July 2024.
21. Access Now, #KeepItOn coalition, "Shrinking democracy, growing violence: internet shutdowns in 2023", February 2024.
22. The Christchurch Call. https://www.christchurchcall.com ; Facebook (Meta) statements on removals of copies of the 15 March 2019 attack video, March 2019.
23. Reuters and Le Monde reporting on the French government's response to social platforms during the riots that followed the death of Nahel Merzouk, June and July 2023.
24. BBC News reporting on ministerial discussions of suspending BlackBerry Messenger during the August 2011 riots in England.
25. BBC News and The Guardian reporting on the August 2024 Southport riots, Ofcom's communications to platforms, and related prosecutions, August to October 2024.
26. Reuters reporting on German pressure on Telegram and the removal of channels used by the Querdenken protest movement, 2022.
27. Reuters and Indian press reporting on India's blocking orders and litigation involving Twitter and X (2021 to 2023) and WhatsApp's 2024 challenge to traceability rules.
28. Reuters and Brazilian press reporting on the blocking of Telegram (2022) and the nationwide suspension of X (2024) by order of Justice Alexandre de Moraes.