FRANKFURT — Christine Lagarde’s announcement that she will leave the European Central Bank in February quickly drew attention to more than her departure date: the two bandages on her face visible in a video statement she posted.

They prompted speculation on social media, which Lagarde addressed in a follow-up post. She said they were from a “small surgery” earlier in the week and urged people to follow medical advice and get their skin checked regularly.

In a separate internal video message to all ECB staff, seen by POLITICO, Lagarde offered a little more humor and detail: “I know I look funny. This is not kick-boxing in Thailand,” she said after attending the International Monetary Fund annual meetings in Bangkok earlier this month. “It is just a little skin cancer that had to go.”

The ECB declined to comment and referred to Lagarde’s earlier statement.

Earlier Thursday, Lagarde, who is 70, ended months of speculation about her future role, saying that she will step down on Feb. 7 ahead of her term officially ending in October next year.

The ECB did not reveal what Lagarde’s immediate plans are, however she has previously hinted she may want to weigh in on France’s 2027 presidential race.

An official familiar with Lagarde’s thinking, granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, said she made her move almost a full year before the end of her term, to have “greater freedom to express her views and to engage in non-monetary matters, because she cannot remain neutral when she sees the developments taking place in her own country and in the world.”

Die EU-Kommission will nationale Regelungen zu Altersgrenzen für soziale Medien vorerst zurückstellen. Die Mitgliedstaaten sollen entsprechende Gesetzesvorhaben für ein Jahr aussetzen. Statt unterschiedlicher Regeln soll eine gemeinsame europäische Regelung kommen.

Seit dem vergangenen Jahr arbeiten sowohl die Kommission als auch einzelne Mitgliedstaaten an Altersbeschränkungen für soziale Medien. Als Grund gelten Risiken für die psychische Gesundheit junger Menschen. Doch auch nachdem die EU einen einheitlichen Rechtsrahmen vorgeschlagen hatte, verfolgten die Länder weiterhin unterschiedliche Ansätze und Altersgrenzen.

Im September schlug die EU den sogenannten Kids Act vor. Er soll EU-weit einheitliche Standards schaffen und unterschiedliche Beschränkungen für Kinder unter 13 Jahren und Jugendliche unter 15 Jahren vorsehen. Mehrere Mitgliedstaaten arbeiteten dennoch weiter an eigenen Verboten. Länder wie Griechenland und Dänemark erklärten, sie wollten nicht warten, bis die EU-weiten Regeln ausgehandelt und umgesetzt sind.

„Die Kommission hat beschlossen, alle Entwürfe nationaler Gesetze, die sich mit den künftigen harmonisierten Regeln überschneiden, für zwölf Monate aufzuschieben“, sagte Kommissionssprecher Thomas Regnier am Donnerstag vor Journalisten.

Österreich hatte die Kommission bereits im Juli gebeten zu prüfen, ob sein geplantes Gesetz, das den Zugang für unter 14-Jährige verbieten würde, mit EU-Recht vereinbar ist. Die Frist für eine Antwort der Kommission lief am Donnerstag aus. Die EU-Kommission forderte Österreich daraufhin auf, die Verabschiedung des Gesetzes für ein Jahr auszusetzen, sagte Regnier.

„Ein europäisches Problem erfordert eine gemeinsame europäische Antwort“, sagte Regnier. „Wir müssen uns nun auf die Verhandlungen zum EU Kids Act konzentrieren.“

Die Mitgliedstaaten müssen sich nun mit dem Europäischen Parlament und der Kommission auf die Einzelheiten des Kids Act einigen, bevor die Regeln umgesetzt werden können.

Nach dem Vorschlag der Kommission wäre der Zugang zu sozialen Medien für Kinder unter 13 Jahren in den meisten Fällen verboten. Für Jugendliche unter 15 Jahren würde er stark eingeschränkt. Zudem sollen Plattformen zu mehr Sicherheit bereits bei der Gestaltung ihrer Dienste verpflichtet werden. Die Vorgaben sollen auch für Videospiele und KI-Begleiter gelten.

Wie die Mitgliedstaaten auf die Aufforderung reagieren werden, ist zunächst unklar.

Griechenland hat bereits ein eigenes Gesetz für unter 15-Jährige verabschiedet und dürfte es voraussichtlich beibehalten können, weil das Verfahren bereits vor dem EU-Vorschlag durchlaufen wurde. Außer zu Österreich wollte sich Regnier nicht zu einzelnen Ländern äußern. Im Fall Griechenlands gebe es jedoch „Nuancen“, die damit zusammenhingen, wann das Land sein Gesetz der Kommission zur Prüfung auf Vereinbarkeit mit EU-Recht vorgelegt habe.

Dieser Artikel ist zuerst auf Englisch bei POLITICO erschienen.

The European Commission is telling capitals across the bloc to pause any national laws that restrict social media access to minors, as Brussels seeks an EU-wide set of rules.

But Austria, the first country told to halt its legislation Thursday, lashed out at the order.

“It is unacceptable for Brussels to block member states from enacting national laws without presenting a completed European solution of its own,” Austrian State Secretary Alexander Pröll told POLITICO.

The Commission and national capitals have been seeking age restrictions for social media over the past year, citing risks to young people’s mental health. But even after the EU proposed a unified law, different countries have continued pursuing different approaches and age limits.

In September, the EU proposed the Kids Act, which would set the same standard across the union, placing different limits on access for those under the age of 13, and for those under 15. But multiple capitals continued to legislate their own bans, as countries like Greece and Denmark have said they don’t want to wait for the EU-wide law to be negotiated and implemented.

“The Commission has decided to postpone for 12 months any draft national laws overlapping with the future harmonized rules,” the EU executive’s spokesperson Thomas Regnier told reporters Thursday.

Austria had asked the Commission back in July to check whether its own proposed law, which would ban access for under-14s, was in line with EU law. A deadline for the Commission to respond lapsed Thursday and the EU executive told them to pause adoption for a year, Regnier said.

“I have no sympathy for the European Commission’s delay of Austria’s social media ban,” Vice-Chancellor and Minister for Media Affairs Andreas Babler told POLITICO in a statement.

Austria will continue preparing its own legislation to get it ready for the end of the 12-month pause, said Babler. Vienna will “advance the legislative process at national level to ensure that the social media ban can be implemented immediately once the EU standstill period has expired,” he added.

“A European problem requires a united European response,” Regnier said. “We need to now focus on the negotiations of the EU Kids Act.”

The capitals have to negotiate with the EU Parliament and Commission to agree on the details of the Kids Act, so that it can then be implemented.

The Commission’s proposal would bar access to social media for minors under 13 in most cases and severely restrict access for teens under 15. It also sets requirement for safety by design on the platforms, including video games and AI companions.

The reaction of the other capitals to the order is not immediately clear.

Greece has already passed its own law for under-15s and will likely be able to keep it, simply because it went through the process prior to the EU proposal. Regnier declined to comment on specific countries other than Austria, but did say that there were “nuances” due to when Athens sent its law to the Commission for the compatibility check with EU rules.

Sebastian Starcevic contributed to this report. This article has been updated to include Austria’s reaction.

LONDON — Enforcement of the U.K.’s upcoming social media ban for under-16s will probably require older teens to show a form of photo ID, according to the U.K.’s online safety regulator Ofcom.

In a government-commissioned report, Ofcom said it had identified just four methods that are “highly effective” at determining whether a user is 16 or over — while noting that “the risk of circumvention cannot be entirely eliminated, and some children will succeed in bypassing age checks.”

The advice comes after the U.K. government vowed to take a tougher approach than Australia to enforcing its ban — due to come into force next year — by requiring platforms to use “highly effective age assurance” to identify underage users.

It will inform regulations to implement the ban which ministers have said they aim to introduce to parliament this year.

Three of the methods identified by Ofcom — photo ID matching, using a digital ID service, or banking-based checks — require a passport or driving license at some stage, while the fourth, facial age estimation, may in some cases need to be followed by a supplementary check using one of the other methods because of a high margin of error at younger ages.

“This ban will shape the future of children’s lives online, so it’s important to get it right,” Ofcom CEO Melanie Dawes said.

While the age checks would involve processing of personal data, “available methods can be delivered in a way that protects users’ privacy and complies with data protection law,” Ofcom said.

It also said social media platforms should take steps to mitigate circumvention, like enabling users to report suspected underage accounts, and using age inference technology to spot activity from users who may be underage.

The regulator said it will consult on further guidance for platforms once regulations to implement the social media ban are laid.

BRUSSELS — New powers proposed for the EU’s border police Frontex to monitor social media pose a threat to free speech, European lawmakers and civil society groups have told POLITICO.

The EU Commission’s proposal Tuesday for a major revamp of the coast and border patrol agency included a broad and explicit mandate to monitor social media for information that aids or encourages illegal border crossings into the European Union.

Social democratic Italian lawmaker Brando Benifei told POLITICO it was “legitimate” for authorities to remove online advertisements for human smuggling: “But a broad social media surveillance mandate goes much further, placing online speech under a border agency’s watch.”

After a 2019 monitoring tender with similar powers was revoked over criticism about privacy violations, Benifei said “the Commission now proposes copying ICE’s invasive online tracking,” referencing the much-criticized surveillance tactics of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Under the EU proposal, Frontex would set up an internal structure to monitor social media and report to the platform in question the content it says is facilitating illegal entry to EU countries. This comes as the Commission is seeking to double the agency’s budget for the next seven years and vastly expand its powers to deport people.

The EU already has several structures that facilitate the exchange of information between civil society, social media platforms and authorities when it comes to disinformation campaigns or illegal content. These include a rapid response system on disinformation campaigns under the Digital Services Act (DSA), the EU’s landmark law regulating digital platforms, as well as a recently established democratic resilience center.

Policing content

Brussels must tread a careful balance not to police individual pieces of content, especially given criticism from civil society activists that it is trying to become the arbiter of truth online. The legality of content is set by countries, which assign their authorities or civil society to monitor the platforms for problematic postings to be flagged to the platforms to be taken down.

Frontex would apply for trusted flagger status under the DSA, which gives priority to the content it flags to social media platforms. Entities that apply for this status have to demonstrate expertise and independence to a national authority, which grants them special status.

“The DSA’s trusted flagger program was never conceived for police forces to circumvent due process when assessing the legality of people’s online expression,” said Jan Penfrat, senior policy advisor at civil society group EDRi.

The Commission’s initial communication suggested Frontex “will be acting” as such an entity, which EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen later clarified meant they would apply for it. That application would have to be reviewed by a national authority to check Frontex’s independence and expertise in that area.

Polish right-wing MEP Piotr Müller told POLITICO that the “mandate must be precise” in focusing on criminal networks. “Frontex should go after smugglers and human traffickers, not police opinions about migration.” Müller is among those that criticize the DSA as policing free speech online.

Executive Vice President Virkkunen announced the news at a meeting Tuesday of signatories of the DSA’s code of conduct on disinformation, some of whom are trusted flaggers. Questions around the implications of the measures for freedom of speech and assembly came up in the closed-door meeting. According to two attendees, Renate Nikolay, deputy director general of DG CONNECT, the Commission’s tech department, tried to assuage the free-speech concerns.

Other lawmakers took a positive, yet reserved, stance towards the changes in Frontex’s mandate. The EU’s migration authorities “need the tools to respond to the changing threats at Europe’s borders, including smugglers using social media to spread lies and promote dangerous crossings,” which can include “better monitoring and information-sharing,” Regina Doherty, a center-right MEP from Ireland told POLITICO.

But “the priority now is to get the detail right so authorities can act quickly within a clear legal framework, and platforms take responsibility for illegal content,” she pointed out.

Austrian center-right MEP Andreas Schwab said that “social media clearly is becoming more and more a concern, but we should not have too many tools – let’s make use of the DSA.”

Another MEP who knows the agency well was more blunt. Fabrice Leggeri, a former director of Frontex who hails from the far-right French National Rally party, said that the new powers amounted to an “attempt to censor freedom of speech in Europe” by Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen.

The Commission didn’t respond to POLITICO’s repeated requests for comment on Frontex’s expertise in this domain.

Max Griera contributed to this report.

Asked about AI and the trend of college students booing tech CEOs at graduation ceremonies, Instagram head Adam Mosseri acknowledged in an interview that a lot of people really don't like AI, and it's not just young people and creatives. Appearing on the Colin and Samir podcast to talk about the launch of widescreen and long-form video for Instagram, Mosseri said he thinks there's a trend of "more anxiety and more frustration and more anger about AI," particularly in creative industries:

It's not only getting worse, it's going to continue to get worse. I think we're going to see more frustration and anger, some of it founded, some of it un …

Read the full story at The Verge.

The For You feed combines posts from communities users have joined with recommendations tailored to their interests.

SAN FRANCISCO — Billionaire opponents of California’s proposed wealth tax have spent more fighting it than they ever have on a political cause in the state, according to a POLITICO analysis.

A record $612 million from more than 70 current and former California billionaires is flooding this year’s state elections, nearly half of it for groups working to defeat Proposition 40, the wealth tax initiative on Tuesday’s ballot, POLITICO found.

The fight over Prop 40 has brought California’s wealthiest residents — many from its native tech industry — together in an unprecedented show of political coordination, the new data reveals. Tech leaders say the wealth tax has accelerated plans for broader political engagement this cycle, building networks that could be the foundation for future campaigns.

It’s a particularly striking display of unity from Silicon Valley’s notoriously hard-to-organize donor class. Google co-founder Sergey Brin is by far the well-funded opposition’s biggest benefactor, with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, venture capitalist John Doerr, Stripe CEO Patrick Collison and crypto executive Chris Larsen also among those who have contributed the most dollars in trying to stop the billionaire tax.

The possibility of a tax on their assets has drawn more than $293 million from at least 30 California billionaires, the majority of whom made their fortunes in tech but otherwise span industries, from agriculture to real estate — as well as the political spectrum, from established Democratic megadonors to some Republican allies and first-time donors.

Frank Slootman, the billionaire board chair and former CEO of cloud data company Snowflake, said he only had a “moderate” interest in politics despite giving $5 million to an anti-Prop 40 group, arguing that the measure erodes private property rights and the state’s economic dynamism.

“This upends the most basic assumptions we have about being a taxpayer and a resident of a state,” said Slootman, who has no prior record of California campaign contributions. “I vote in most elections, that’s about it. This is not about politics for me — it is far more important than that.”

The other half of billionaires’ spending this year came largely from Tom Steyer, a rare billionaire endorser of Prop 40 who bankrolled his own failed gubernatorial bid — the most expensive primary campaign in state history.

Even longtime strategists who have worked for statewide candidates and California’s costly ballot battles struggled to find a historical parallel for the coordination or scale of billionaire spending against Prop 40.

Rob Stutzman, a Sacramento political consultant whose past campaigns have involved a billionaire gubernatorial candidate and record-breaking ballot spending over sports betting, said that Silicon Valley leaders see Prop 40 as an “existential threat to tech in California” and the innovation that has taken root in the region for decades.

“Having to defend against a direct assault is a more unifying principle,” Stutzman told POLITICO. “They’re known for their pet issues that are harder to organize their peers around, but you can circle the wagons to protect yourselves. There is nothing that focuses similar-situated people.”

Proponents of Prop 40 contend the measure is necessary to backfill federal health care cuts.

The last year billionaires in California came closest to spending at this level was 2010, when they dropped $147 million on state races and measures, according to POLITICO’s analysis — a total that’s just over half of what the current wealth tax proposal mobilized. Most of it was the result of billionaire Meg Whitman, a former CEO of eBay and Hewlett-Packard, self-funding her unsuccessful Republican campaign for governor.

Scott Ellis, a millionaire and Prop 40 supporter who formerly served as a senior director at HP, described the magnitude of billionaire spending to fend off the measure as “a completely different animal” than past examples of “a lot of money spent by a rich person to get themselves elected.”

“People with wealth and extreme wealth are getting much more brazen than they used to be,” Ellis told POLITICO. “These people have tremendous resources. They have an incredible range of choices to make, including choosing to oppose this kind of ballot measure.”

Representatives for several billionaire opponents of Prop 40, including Schmidt, Larsen and agricultural titan Stewart Resnick, declined to comment on POLITICO’s findings.

Others, like Doerr, referred POLITICO to Building a Better California, a new Brin-led political operation that has become the primary vehicle for billionaire money against Prop 40.

The group defended the importance of its cause, arguing the measure would “permanently devastate” the state tax base and budget while undermining the health care funding it’s intended to patch.

“We are fortunate to be supported by entrepreneurs and business leaders who have built their businesses and created hundreds of thousands of jobs here, and who share a deep commitment to advancing policies that will improve quality of life for all and protect the state’s economic, jobs, and innovation engine for generations to come,” Building a Better California spokesperson Abby Lunardini said in a statement.

Debru Carthan, vice president of the SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West union behind the billionaire tax, responded to the contributions, saying, “no amount of billionaire spending is going to intimidate us or turn us back.”

A reawakening

Tech leaders have told POLITICO that the wealth tax awakened a sleeping giant in California politics: their previously disengaged industry peers, who months ago suddenly started spending across the ballot to steer California in a more moderate, business-friendly direction. The threat injected the wider political organizing, some of which preceded the measure’s introduction, with a new sense of urgency.

“The tech community has wanted to become a bigger player in California politics,” said veteran Democratic strategist Steven Maviglio.

“They’re building an infrastructure, I think, for the long term because they’ve become a dominant player in our economy, and they now, after literally a decade of being hands-off, want to be very involved because they see the consequences,” Maviglio, who is working on a separate housing and environment-related ballot fight where Schmidt’s wife, Wendy Schmidt, has given $10 million, told POLITICO.

Earlier efforts to unify faltered amid strategic disagreements and overinflated fundraising promises. That was especially apparent in the push to rally Silicon Valley around San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a business-friendly candidate with a background in startups, during the California gubernatorial primary.

Although Building a Better California wasn’t spared its share of donor turmoil, an initial patchwork of opposition efforts eventually consolidated resources under the Brin operation’s strategy, devised with the help of veteran ballot-measure consultant Ned Wigglesworth.

The group also brought on fundraisers associated with California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s inner circle. Newsom has publicly opposed imposing a billionaire tax at the state level.

In addition to funding Prop 40 attacks, several billionaires claimed to have fled the state to avoid the tax. Brin, for example, registered to vote in Nevada. Because the one-time, 5% tax on assets would apply to billionaires who lived in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026, POLITICO’s analysis covers billionaires with recent California ties, based on information from Forbes, the progressive nonprofit Americans for Tax Fairness and news reports.

Some of those billionaires made their moves quietly, highlighting a split over how they should respond to the possibility of the tax passing.

“This has been a point of friction between me and some of my other billionaire friends,” Palmer Luckey, the billionaire founder of defense tech giant Anduril, said on a call with reporters this week. “They’ve said things like, ‘Palmer, you have to have solidarity for us. You can’t enable these really bad policies. If you stay and if you don’t leave, it’s going to show them that there’s no consequences.’”

Luckey, a vocal critic of the tax who hasn’t donated to the opposition campaign, added, “I’m planning on staying in California. I’m going to keep fighting it. I’m hoping that this doesn’t pass.”

Meta revealed a plan last week incentivizing CEO Mark Zuckerberg to stay near the company’s Silicon Valley headquarters after the longtime California resident told a special committee of his board he was considering leaving over the tax. He also hasn’t challenged Prop 40 through political contributions.

DoorDash CEO Tony Xu, who poured almost $3.5 million into trying to prevent the wealth tax, was one of three members on the special committee negotiating with Zuckerberg.

Behind the money

Brin is single-handedly putting $102 million behind Building a Better California as it campaigns to sink Prop 40. This year, he’s also backed unsuccessful runs by Republican Chad Bianco and the moderate Mahan in the gubernatorial primary, plus Republican Steve Hilton’s campaign for governor. Federally, he’s given close to $450,000 to the Republican National Committee.

But before this cycle, Brin had been a sporadic donor, gone dark for many years. His last disclosed political donation in California was in 2010 — for $200,000 to join other Silicon Valley leaders in opposing an ultimately defeated ballot measure that would’ve suspended a state climate law.

Some of the billionaire donors — Slootman, Roblox CEO David Baszucki, Robinhood co-founders Baiju Bhatt and Vlad Tenev, Figma CEO Dylan Field, fintech executive Max Levchin and software founder Andrew Karam — have no history of spending on California politics before this year, according to state campaign records.

Tenev said in a statement that he donated to Building a Better California to support one of two other measures the group has advanced, which is designed to invalidate Prop 40 and would prohibit new taxes on various forms of personal savings.

“Special taxes on retirement and unrealized investment gains run contrary to the intent of the investment vehicles that have helped millions of Americans build wealth for the long term,” the Robinhood chief executive said. “History shows us that taxes aimed at a few have often been extended permanently to include more taxpayers over time.”

Another Building a Better California donor, Doerr, on the other hand, was a pioneer in shaping how Silicon Valley engaged with politics and Washington. He co-founded TechNet in 1997, which launched a political action committee as a key part of its strategy. Today, the influential industry trade association manages both federal and state-level PACs on top of a vast bipartisan lobbying network, with Google, Stripe and Kleiner Perkins among its many corporate members.

The wealth tax has also brought former Sequoia venture capitalists, Michael Moritz and Doug Leone, onto the same side after they previously diverged on California’s partisan redistricting fight at the ballot last year. They spent $7.5 million and $100,000, respectively, on groups fighting Prop 40.

Leone is a prolific Republican donor who re-endorsed President Donald Trump in 2024, while Moritz has consistently criticized Trump and chided his supporters in Silicon Valley for making a mistake.

No less than a dozen of the billionaires spending on groups that oppose Prop 40 are current CEOs — including DoorDash’s Xu, Roblox’s Baszucki, Robinhood’s Tenev, Stripe’s Collison, Affirm’s Levchin, Schmidt of rocketmaker Relativity Space, Hemant Taneja of top venture capital firm General Catalyst, Field of design platform Figma and Parker Conrad of HR software provider Rippling.

Collectively, they’ve plowed at least $88 million into their cause.

Several more of the billionaires in POLITICO’s analysis chair influential companies and firms. The opposition effort has received $40 million from Doerr, the Kleiner Perkins venture capitalist; $17.5 million from Larsen at the crypto company Ripple; and $2 million from George Marcus at the Bay Area real estate titan Marcus & Millichap — to name a few.

Will they come together again?

Whether the campaign infrastructure built by billionaires and the tech industry for the midterms will endure is still an open question.

Other new tech-funded groups this cycle have promised to play the long game and framed their plans around at least a decadelong horizon. Building a Better California itself has also committed to sticking around for the foreseeable future.

California political observers point to the size of the Brin-backed operation, as well as its decision to focus on additional environmental and housing measures, in predicting it won’t stop after the election.

Still, the unprecedented nature of their mobilization raises questions about what cause would be able to activate so many of these individuals again. Donors and advisers to Building a Better California previously clashed over whether spending on non-wealth-tax issues, such as environmental policy, could jeopardize the group’s success.

In the past, “if you look at those big dollar campaigns, ballot measure campaigns, those were funded in general by an industry,” said Jim Ross, a Bay Area-based Democratic consultant. “Wherein this, it’s a bunch of individuals, very wealthy individuals, but they don’t necessarily have any commonality other than they don’t want to be taxed.”

“When you have a group of wealthy people all putting money into this, a lot of the challenge is going to always be: How do you manage that coalition? How do you keep everybody moving in the same direction?” he added.

One ready answer is a revived wealth tax effort.

Last week, Rippling CEO Conrad said in a social media exchange with Silicon Valley Rep. Ro Khanna, whose early support for the wealth tax alienated some of his original tech backers, that he “absolutely cannot afford to stay” in California — reasoning the measure may soon be followed by another one-time tax in the next election.

Slootman made a similar calculation.

“In a one-party state with super majorities in both chambers, we are at risk for everything we own,” he said. “We are hunted animals in this state. They will be at it again in two years.”

Rosmery Izaguirre contributed to this report.

About this analysis

POLITICO’s analysis compiled records from the California secretary of state for 142 California billionaires that have contributed to state campaign committees, including 30 who had given to the following committees opposing Proposition 40: Building a Better California, Californians Against Tax Increases and Golden State Promise. Reporters reviewed donation records to verify names and employers matched with the billionaires who live in the state, as well as contacted each donor. Donations are as of Oct. 26.

Forbes estimated the wealth of the persons included in this analysis. Because billionaires often own properties in multiple states, we relied on Forbes to identify each person’s residence and supplemented with further data provided by the progressive nonprofit Americans for Tax Fairness. We included people who have recently left the state, including cases when they said they were leaving to avoid the potential wealth tax.

After Elon Musk warned that "advertisers who post ads that are ugly, shrill, strident or overstate claims about their product will be barred from advertising" on X earlier this month, the platform now appears to be using a jarring animated arm that reaches across the screen to draw attention to the "promote" button while users are composing a post.

Many X users have seen and shared images of the unsettling promotional tool, including The Verge's Tom Warren, but it doesn't appear for everyone on the platform. The arm seems limited to verified users, or those with a paid subscription to X Premium. Reactions, unsurprisingly, have been less tha …

Read the full story at The Verge.

As Meta was feeling public pressure over teen mental health, and facing an impending onslaught of kids safety trials, the company considered a campaign to discredit a key critic: social psychologist Jonathan Haidt.

Newly filed court documents show that in March 2023, Meta discussed a "Whisper strategy" to "turn academics against Haidt," a thought leader who blamed social media for rising adolescent depression and anxiety. Haidt hadn't yet published his bestselling book, The Anxious Generation, but he testified about his conclusions before Congress in 2022, and in February 2023, he began posting more of his theories and research to Substack. …

Read the full story at The Verge.

Six weeks after the EU unveiled its much-anticipated proposal to protect kids across the bloc from social media, European governments are pressing ahead with their own rules. 

National political leaders had spent months asking for unified age restrictions for social media access across the European Union, to avoid 27 different sets of rules. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s response came in September with the EU Kids Act, a signature initiative of her second term that would ban under-13s from accessing most current social media platforms and severely restrict access for under-15s. 

But it is becoming clear that individual countries don’t want to wait for the Brussels legislative wheels to turn — and in some cases, are proceeding with national laws that would kick even more kids off the platforms than what von der Leyen has in mind.  

“While we wait for the EU Kids Act – we are pushing forward with national legislation,” Denmark’s digital minister Christina Egelund said. “The problems are urgent. Children and parents should not be asked to wait.” 

Last week, Greece’s parliament passed a bill to bar social media access for under-15s, while Italy’s own stalled efforts to shield under-14s suddenly found new winds.  

By Thursday, the Commission will have to give the first indication of how it will deal with national laws. Its response to Austria’s proposal to bar social media access for under-14s will be the first test case.

Capitals continue to ultimately favor a unified EU law, which is in line with existing rules that give Brussels oversight of big platforms like Instagram and TikTok. A harmonized law also avoids fragmenting the market with different rules in different countries.  

Yet agreeing on a final text for the legislation and implementing the Kids Act will take more than a year — too long for national leaders eager to show they are serious about protecting the mental health of kids and reining in Big Tech. The age at which limits are set is also a sticking point, with countries preferring various thresholds between 13 and 16.  

“Greece decided to move forward with its own legislation on minors’ access to social media because protecting children is a pressing issue that calls for timely and concrete action,” a spokesperson for the country’s digital ministry said. “We have a responsibility to address an issue that is already affecting the daily lives of children and their families,” they said, adding that the Greek law is “complementary” to the EU’s and that Athens is still in favor of a bloc-wide solution.  

Portugal formally notified the Commission of its own law a little over a week after the Kids Act was proposed, formally asking the EU executive to say if Lisbon’s plans are in line with European rules. Cyprus’s ministers approved their own ban for under-15s on the day Brussels proposed its law. Austria and Germany have also not shown any signs of slowing down. Many of these countries had backed an EU-wide solution.  

The current trajectory could create a confusing situation for minors, who may find themselves locked out of social media in January 2027 only to then regain access under parental controls once the Kids Act is implemented later that year or in 2028. 

The Commission had stressed that the law would bring about “maximum harmonization,” meaning national laws would be scrapped if and when the EU-wide measures came into force.  

When France first formally informed the Commission of its national law to ban social media access for under-15s, “we said very clearly: you should be able, and you should be ready to repeal this law once there are European measures in place,” a senior Commission official told reporters when announcing the law in September.  

But a few weeks later, Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told POLITICO that the EU executive was still considering how to respond to the laws that have been submitted to be checked for compatibility with European rules.  

The Kids Act will have to be negotiated between the Commission, the European Parliament and EU governments, meaning it may not be finalized for months. It would then come into force six months later. The senior official estimated negotiations would take eight to 12 months starting next September, putting the implementation date well into 2028.  

Capitals had backed a pan-European solution in part because it allows enforcement to align with the landmark Digital Services Act, which gives the power to oversee big platforms like Instagram and TikTok to Brussels. Industry and some civil society groups were also supportive of an EU-wide solution because they wouldn’t have to deal with dozens of national laws and different ages in different countries.  

But public sentiment around social media and teen mental health has taken a severe turn for the worse in recent years, culminating in multimillion- and, in some cases, billion-dollar settlements against Meta and TikTok across the U.S.  

In the meantime, European leaders and von der Leyen have spent the last year promising the public age restrictions for social media.  

“A European age limit will send a much stronger signal to Big Tech – enough is enough,” said Denmark’s Egelund. “It will also place the responsibility firmly and directly on those who should bear it – the tech giants.”  

When attorneys general from across the US announced a $17 billion settlement with Meta this summer, the sum was unprecedented. But a ruling last week by a New Mexico judge blew that number out of the water. The judge ordered Meta to pay $25 billion to resolve claims that Meta misled users around the 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal and related incidents. Similar claims were resolved by the settlement with most other states. The outcome raised an obvious question: Should these states have asked for more?

The answer depends on a mix of factors, including whether the $25 billion order stands up to Meta's legal challenges. Meta's chief legal of …

Read the full story at The Verge.

The EU’s border agency, Frontex, will be able to monitor social media for information about migration flows.

The European Commission on Tuesday unveiled a revamp of Frontex, strengthening its capabilities and capacity to tackle illegal migration. It will play a more prominent role in deporting people with no legal right to remain in the EU, including new powers to carry out return operations beyond the bloc’s territory and new oversight on social media.

The role of social media platforms in spreading information that contributes to illegal migration was central to the crisis in the Spanish exclave of Ceuta, where thousands of migrants illegally crossed the border within a few hours in July.

The new rules will create within Frontex “an online monitoring and response center to monitor publicly accessible social media content to detect developments relevant to external border management, and also to support action against illegal online content linked to border security risks,” EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen told reporters on Tuesday.

The agency will also “be acting as a trusted flagger under the Digital Services Act, flagging illegal content to online platforms, and requesting national authorities to issue removal orders where appropriate,” the Commission said in press material.

Being a “trusted flagger” under the DSA, the EU’s landmark social media rules, is a special status granted by national digital regulators. Content flagged by entities with this status is put on a fast track to be dealt with by online platforms.

Virkkunen said Frontex will apply for this status with national authorities, and she expected the border agency to be approved because of its “special expertise.”

PARIS — The French government explored ways of blocking social networks during last Saturday’s protests, two people familiar with the plan told POLITICO.

In the week leading up to Oct. 24, the French interior ministry was in touch with telecom operators to explore ways of cutting access to social networks or even to mobile internet in specific areas to prevent rioters from coordinating, according to one government official from the Prime Minister’s office and one employee of a telecom company.

The push culminated in Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu directly asking French telecom operators to be ready to block access to TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and X, in a letter revealed by French digital outlet Blast, which first reported on the government’s request.

Contacted by POLITICO, officials from Lecornu’s office, the technology ministry and the interior ministry did not deny the move nor the letter’s existence.

The government feared that the scenes of violence seen on Oct. 17 could repeat or escalate on the following weekend — a concern that did not materialize, as far fewer incidents were recorded on Oct. 24.

“What they wanted, above all, was to block the communication channels that allow gangs to meet up and organize,” said the employee of a telecommunications provider, who was granted anonymity to speak freely.

The move, however, would have also prevented peaceful protesters from communicating as well. Blocking access to social networks in a targeted area, such as a specific neighborhood, is not technically possible, while cutting access to mobile internet would cause major disruptions to other key services such as mobile payments, security-surveillance devices and emergency communications.

The government also considered a less radical solution that would disable geolocation display features “to prevent gatherings of people who don’t know each other, for example,” according to the official from the prime minister’s office.

Other limitations on social media access are being discussed in parliament as part of the debate on the so-called “who breaks pays” bill, which would hold people who “knowingly took part” in a riot financially responsible — whether or not they committed property damage themselves.

The same bill would require platforms to remove within 24 hours content that incites physical or sexual assault, theft, destruction, or property damage, “when such content is likely to cause a serious disturbance to public order” and within one hour content that encourages insurrection.

Other lawmakers are proposing measures ranging from tracking troublemakers via algorithmic video surveillance to penalizing online marketplaces that fail to prevent the sale of stolen goods.

LONDON — Nigel Farage said Tuesday that candidates for his Reform UK party won’t be prevented from standing if they like social media posts by far-right activist Tommy Robinson.

The Reform UK leader has long tried to distance the right-wing parties he has led from controversial Robinson and his activists.

But, speaking to Radio 4’s Today program Tuesday, he said simply expressing support for Robinson shouldn’t be a bar to representing Reform UK.

Speaking to Radio 4’s Today program Tuesday, Farage said he “wouldn’t ban anybody for liking someone like Tommy Robinson. Wouldn’t be my cup of tea, but I wouldn’t ban anybody from doing so.”

Farage added that he doesn’t “want us to get into a world of cancel culture” — although he added that “if somebody supported something that was outright wrong, I’d do it.”

Pushed on whether any support for Robinson’s posts would merit a sanction, Farage said it “depends what the post is to a large extent. But I’m not going to run a party where we say ‘you can’t talk about that person or that person.’ We have to be sensible about vetting, and we are.”

Reform UK has faced criticism for its vetting of candidates since Farage’s return as leader in 2024. An undercover documentary by ITV found the vetting process encouraged candidates to delete social media accounts that included supporting for Robinson before applying.

But Farage claimed on the BBC “we vet our council candidates to a much higher level than any other political party” and said other parties were not held to account for candidates who had made questionable comments.

Robinson — who has multiple criminal convictions — is currently on trial for two counts of harassment causing fear of violence towards two journalists. He denies the charges.

Copper prices are at record highs, but for TikTok creators, the real money may be in teaching others how to strip wire—and selling them the tools to do it.

Police in France fired tear gas to disperse protesters in multiple cities Saturday, as tougher policing measures aimed at preventing violence and looting appeared to avoid major incidents but drew criticism from unions and left-wing leaders.

The fresh wave of demonstrations came a week after numerous scenes of looting and clashes between police and protesters on the sidelines of peaceful marches over the cost of living and school conditions.

According to the Interior Ministry, 410,000 people participated in demonstrations across France, though unions said the figure was twice that. The ministry said Sunday morning that it had been a “calm night,” adding that police made 1,314 arrests on Saturday, compared to 2,025 last weekend.

Authorities said the march in Paris, which drew 110,000 people, remained calm through Saturday afternoon, but tensions flared as demonstrations came to an end in multiple cities.

In Lyon, France’s third-largest city where gatherings were banned in parts of the city, the police used tear gas to disperse protesters. Forty people were arrested in Nice, where the protests were banned, while tear gas was used against protestors in Marseille, French broadcaster BFMTV reported.

Tensions also escalated during the afternoon in Toulouse, Lille, Nantes and Rennes, according to media reports, with protestors throwing projectiles at police and officers using water cannons to disperse them. Authorities in Lille, where about 15,000 people protested according to early estimates, extended their curfews for minors through Monday.

Nuñez, the interior minister, told police forces to be “uncompromising” with potential rioters earlier on Saturday, ahead of a day of protests that is leaving the country on edge.

“Today’s key words will be mobility, responsiveness and adaptability, so we can really act against high-risk groups… We must be absolutely uncompromising and hyper, hyper, hyper-responsive,” he said during a visit Saturday morning to the National Police Academy in Vincennes.

Nuñez was heavily criticized for his handling of last Saturday’s protests, and has been accused of underestimating both the number of protesters and the potential for violent incidents. He announced on Friday that 70,000 police officers would be deployed, 10,000 more than last weekend.

The government has since imposed local curfews and banned public demonstrations in several cities including Lyon and parts of Nice and Lille. Macron also instructed local authorities to ban protests on Saturday except those organized by unions.

The move drew backlash from unions, left-wing parties and human rights groups such as Amnesty International, which called the bans “serious restrictions of the right to protest,” and warned against a “slide toward authoritarian practices.”

Authorities in Paris changed the march’s route late on Friday to redirect protesters away from the capital’s city center in an attempt to protect businesses looted last weekend. Far-left presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon said the move was aimed at discouraging and sowing confusion among protesters. 

“Everything is made to trigger an explosion,” said Mélenchon as he marched with protesters in Paris. French President Emmanuel Macron “will realize that this is going to happen every week,” he added.

“We are the country of democracy, the country of human rights, and today this government is trampling on them. And that is very serious,” said Ryad Rani, president of the Union Syndicale Lycéenne, a high school students’ union.

Authorities said that more than 10,000 people took part in an authorized anti-far-right march in Orléans, the Loire Valley city where Marine Le Pen’s National Rally is holding a party conference over the weekend. A banned protest is also expected on Sunday, when the far-right leader is set to formally launch her presidential bid.

“Power prefers to barricade itself behind armored vehicles rather than listen to the legitimate demands of citizens,” said Manon Aubry, an MEP from Mélenchon’s left-wing Unbowed party, in a post on social media. The party supported the school protests in the run-up to last weekend’s riots, but sought to distance itself from the violence. 

France was also rocked by a deadly drive-by shooting in Trappes on Friday, which prosecutors are investigating as a terrorist hate crime. A 12-year-old girl was among those injured, according to local authorities.

“This is a turning point because it is the first time there has been a terrorist act planned to kill our fellow citizens, our children, because of their skin color or the religion attributed to them,” Macron said after visiting the scene on Friday evening. 

His remarks quickly sparked criticism from several leading political figures, who slammed his description of it as the “first” terrorist act motivated by a person’s skin color or religion.

Cost-of-living demonstrations have swept parts of Europe in recent weeks, with similar grievances bringing people to the streets in Spain, Italy and Albania.

This article was updated.

Two years ago, University of Houston student Vasant Bhatt was doing everything he could to help Republicans regain power. He knocked doors for Sen. Ted Cruz's reelection campaign and helped organize his community for Donald Trump, two victories he, like many other Republicans, celebrated in 2024. But this week, Bhatt did something unexpected: He voted for Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico, and he publicly urged others to do the same.

Bhatt, whose father is a small-business owner, tells The Verge he was initially drawn to the Republican Party due to its economic principles. "The strong belief in individual liberty and limited …

Read the full story at The Verge.

he world is starting to understand that there is no way to fully and lastingly protect itself from President Donald Trump.

The man just can’t let things go — and he’ll get creative to get what he wants.

The latest blowup over Ukraine is emblematic of Trump’s wily persistence, and it suggests a challenging two years lie ahead for the international set even if Democrats gain some power in the midterm elections.

Not that long ago, Trump seemed to have patched up ties with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as Kyiv made gains against Russia. Trump signed legislation last month that was championed by his late friend, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), to impose heavy new sanctions and tariffs to punish Russia for its war on Ukraine.

This month, the original Trump — the one who fawns over Russian leader Vladimir Putin and despises Zelenskyy — roared back. He waived many of the legislation’s penalties on Russia, moved to buy Russian diesel and signaled he’s more interested in doing business with Moscow than seeking justice for Kyiv. Ukrainians suspect the U.S. has pressured them by throttling its satellite connections and intelligence-sharing. (The Trump administration disputes much of this.)

“Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine,” Trump said Monday as he welcomed the idea of an arms control summit with Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping that might include talks about Ukraine.

The lesson, foreign officials and others steeped in diplomacy tell me, is that you cannot truly change Trump’s mind or stop his overall trajectory. Even if Trump seems briefly chastened or stages a tactical retreat, he will eventually return in new, often-surprising modes to push his original views and goals. He will try to exhaust you into submission.

Imagine how startling it is to be Ukrainian these days as Trump pressures you to make concessions to Russia by blaming you for a global energy crisis he caused by launching a war on Iran. Or what it’s like for officials across European capitals trying to craft a response, knowing there’s never an end to the process.

“There is no immunity to Donald Trump. He makes a deal in order to make a better deal the next day,” one senior European official mused, having been granted anonymity because the topic involves sensitive diplomacy.

It’s hard to blame world leaders who think they’ve learned to manage Trump only to be bewildered by a sudden left hook on his part. Foreign policy is often driven by hope when you lack good options. And Trumpology is a confounding, but still a relatively new, subfield.

Besides, Trump’s messaging is inconsistent, incoherent and nonstrategic — characteristics that can obscure his single-minded pursuit of his goals. So the global actors dealing with him — whether it’s the Gulf Arab states who shower him with gifts or the Canadians furious over his trade and territorial threats — sometimes think they’ve come to terms with him only to find they’re fighting on a newly configured plane.

A Supreme Court ruling that gutted many of Trump’s tariffs earlier this year was good news in many capitals. But since then, the so-called Tariff Man has moved to impose the import taxes under pretexts not considered by the court, including turning to accusations involving forced labor.

The White House doesn’t dispute Trump’s aggressive tactics.

“There is no greater fighter for America First interests than President Trump — and he is willing to look anyone in the eye to deliver wins on behalf of the United States,” spokesperson Anna Kelly told me in a statement.

The Greenland saga shows the limits of trying to mollify Trump.

In his first term, Trump wanted to buy the frozen island. The idea was shelved amid global laughter, but authorities in Greenland and Denmark made it clear to Trump that they welcomed more U.S. investment in the Danish territory.

In his second term, Trump huffed and puffed about an all-out U.S. takeover of Greenland, only to agree in September to an expanded U.S. military footprint that he could have gotten anyway under existing, decades-old diplomatic accords without all the drama. The whole affair has led to lingering anger in Europe about what Canada’s leader called a “rupture” in the global order — but many European officials hoped that the saga had faded away.

Yet, it’s far from certain that Trump has given up on possessing Greenland. Just days ago, he touted on social media plans to start oil, gas and mineral exploration in “our new and beautiful Greenland.”

The use of “our” is more than a little suggestive.

Defying Trump, too, can get you only so far.

Brazilians effectively told Trump to take a hike when he used tariffs and sanctions to punish the country for charging its former president, Jair Bolsonaro, in a coup attempt.

A few months later, as Bolsonaro was about to start his prison sentence, Trump seemed to admit defeat in his effort to help his political ally. “That’s too bad,” he said in November 2025, with little emotion. (“Brazil Defied Trump and Won,” The New York Times declared.)

But Trump wasn’t done with Brazil. He and his team have pursued efforts to undercut the current Brazilian government while quietly backing Bolsonaro’s son, Flávio, in his efforts to win the presidency this year. The runoff election is on Sunday, and it’s tight.

World leaders are doing what they can to make their countries Trump-resistant, if not all-out Trump-proof.

That has meant everything from diversifying their sources of trade and security alliances to joining Trump on ventures that, on the surface at least, can be helpful to them. (Then there are the many countries, especially in Africa, that diplomats privately tell me are happy to be off Trump’s radar.)

My takeaway from watching all of this, though, is that it’s not enough to stay one step ahead of Trump. You have to stay several steps ahead, and you have to be wildly imaginative about the lengths to which Trump and his devoted aides are willing to go to complicate your life.

The second Trump administration is filled with people who have turned to unique, bizarre and clever interpretations of law and reality to push his agenda. It’s not always clear who is behind which move, but it’s hard to imagine Trump isn’t fine with most of what’s happening.

It’s why a teenager is being held in immigration detention for the actions of his grandmother decades ago. It’s why Congress can scream and shout about its spending orders yet Trump ignores it.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said other nations should not hope that the Republican Party will shed Trump’s worldview, including his disdain for allies, once Trump’s out of power.

“I would love for our allies to know that we have consistent common adversaries that we’re going to work together to fight. I just don’t know that you can make that guarantee,” Murphy, a frequent Trump critic, told me. “That’s painful to say, but given the state of the Republican Party right now, it’s true.”

I understand why Ukraine and the European Union are trying to diversify their sources of intelligence and military industrial bases as Trump keeps chasing love from Russia.

Despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claims, the reality is that the United States can no longer be trusted for such security assistance.

But it’s not enough to find new intelligence partners or weapons manufacturers. You have to ask bigger questions, like, “What are the untapped streams of intelligence that no one knows are out there? What’s a potential weapon no one has considered? How can I acquire what I need before Trump stops me?”

Governments need to have plans — now — for scenarios that seem completely crazy. Better to be wrong than unprepared.

Still, even if you do all of that … “I don’t think it’s possible to stay two or three steps ahead of Trump,” said Charles Kupchan, a former senior national security official during the Obama administration who apparently enjoys raining on parades.

“He acts on impulse,” argued Kupchan, who has a new book out on the crumbling world order. “We need to try to limit the damage he’s causing and ride him out.”

A Democratic win in November’s midterms — one or both chambers of Congress — is unlikely to do much to rein in Trump’s actions abroad during his final years, current and former U.S. and foreign officials tell me.

He still has the veto and has been willing to ignore congressional demands. There’s also the fact that presidents have significantly more power to act in unilateral ways overseas than they do domestically.

Ukraine, the European Union, the world — all will be dealing with a politically wounded Trump who’s likely to double down on what he feels he must have.

“He’s going to be angrier,” Murphy predicted.

Czech President Petr Pavel says a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine was “quite close” – until President Donald Trump lifted sanctions on Russian diesel. 

In an interview conducted on Tuesday with the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which includes POLITICO, Pavel said coordinated U.S.-European sanctions on Russian oil, oligarchs, and other industries were putting Russia “under strain.” But the deal Trump announced earlier this month, in which Russia would supply hundreds of thousands of tons of diesel to the U.S., gave Russia “time to breathe.”

“It will be much harder now,” said Pavel. “Russia uses this momentum to get out of pressure, and it’s kind of a moral boost for them.”

The White House on Wednesday said Trump “successfully negotiated” the deal in order to supply the global market with “massive amounts of diesel and bring prices down.”

The deal quickly drew backlash and, at one point, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators urged Trump to rescind the deal.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a post to social media that the deal “plays into Russia’s hands” and allows Russia “to kill more, wage war for longer, have even less respect for America, and inflict even greater losses and damage on the world.” He accused Trump of using peace talks in Florida as a “smokescreen” as the administration pursued its deal with Russia.

Zelenskyy’s criticism was the latest indicator of rising tensions between Kyiv and Washington. Trump has repeatedly expressed frustrations with Zelenskyy, accusing him of elongating the war. By contrast, of late he has spoken warmly of Putin and said this week that “Russia frankly has been fine on Ukraine.” 

But Pavel offered the Ukrainian president words of support on Wednesday. 

“I believe that President Zelensky and the whole of Ukraine is a victim of a conflict,” said Pavel. “So, I would be probably the last to blame Ukraine for being guilty of the conflict. It was not Ukraine who attacked Russia. It was not Ukraine who was threatening Russia.”

He added that Trump shows a more open approach to Russia than any European leader. 

“To some extent, he may be attracted by Vladimir Putin as a leader with authority, but I don’t think that … President Trump sees it from a position of a struggle between democracy and autocracies because he’s looking at it simply from the point of view of economic prosperity for the United States,” Pavel added.  

Though Pavel indicated concerns about the diesel deal, he declined to say the U.S. had betrayed Ukraine or other European partners. 

“I don’t know yet if we can call it betrayal, but I would call it a mistake,” he said. “Because … it’s now giving Russia a new hope: New hope that they can disregard Europe, they can disregard Ukraine, they can focus on making a deal with the United States, potentially with China, and arranging all things up to their priorities and strategies. I believe that it’s clearly against our interest in Europe.”

Pavel also didn’t rule out a future in which European countries would buy Russian oil, but added that it “will take time” before that happens. 

“If one day Russia is a country respecting other countries’ sovereignty and borders, why not have regular business with such a country? But Russia is not there yet,” he said. 

The Axel Springer Global Reporters Network harnesses the resources of the company’s newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, The Telegraph, Onet and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms: online, print, TV and audio.