Keir Starmer has threatened all his cabinet with the sack if they don't tweet support for him by tonight.
Then, in a record u-turn even for him, his office said he hadn't:

New:
A U.K. government source says it is untrue that cabinet ministers have been told to tweet their support for Starmer or face the sack.

— kathryn samson (@KathrynSamsonC4) February 9, 2026

So far, home secretary Shabana Mahmood, justice minister David Lammy and Angela Rayner have come out in support of Starmer.

However, Rayner — or someone — already set up a leadership campaign website in her name, so some of the support at least may leak away once the u-turn memo circulates.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Sulky drivers illegally staging horse races on public roads have killed a pregnant mare and her "fully formed" unborn foal. The charity My Lovely Horse Rescue were called to the scene in Ballyfermot in the west of Dublin, where they found an exhausted horse named Anne lying bloodied and abandoned in the middle of the road.

They transported her to University College Dublin (UCD) in the hope of providing specialist treatment. However, vets at UCD determined there was too much internal damage for the horse to recover, and therefore made the decision to euthanise.

My Lovely Horse Rescue received reports of the horse being spotted in the Dollymount area, around 15 km away in the far east of the city. This means the racers subjected the heavily pregnant animal to a gruelling trek across an entire city, with the stress of navigating busy main roads. Up to six horses were involved in the race. Anne was seen falling to the ground an hour prior to her final collapse. The charity say Anne:

…slid for at least 30/40 metres. Her injuries align with this.

Images and videos on their Facebook page show the horse with blood on its legs, unable to stand. They say:

Anne was seen being whipped and kicked to get back up. She didn't, she couldn't. Her abusers fled the scene into the bushes leaving Anne to die!!!

The group have appealed for:

…anyone with pictures, dash cam footage to come forward.

Sulky racing — calls to ban so-called 'sport' increase

Sulky racing involves driving horses along a course while they are attached to a two-wheel cart or 'sulky'. Done on official tracks, it is a legal sport similar to horse racing, albeit with the same risks of injury to animals who are being abused purely for human entertainment. An underground scene exists, however, in which racers drive horses along roads. This violates existing traffic laws.

My Lovely Horse Rescue report being routinely called out to instances of injured or dead horses who have suffered their fate as a result of sulky road races. Media have covered several cases of horses killed by racers in recent years. The latest cruelty has prompted fresh calls for politicians to bring in new laws to specifically ban sulky racing.

Aontú's Limerick Councillor Sarah Beasley described herself as "horrified" by the death of Anne and her foal. She said of the 'sport':

It is endangering animals and human lives, because we know that sulky racing is taking place on busy national roads as well as more rural ones. Can you just imagine the carnage that would be caused if one of these sulkys' [sic] careered into the path of drivers or pedestrians? The horrors of this are just unimaginable.

Currently the spotlight is on scramblers and their use on public roads which is also illegal, and action is being taken to stamp this out for once and for all, but sulky driving is equally as deadly, both to the unfortunate animals and the public.

She continued:

We need statutory prohibition of sulky racing and training now.

Cruel 'traditions' should be discontinued

A petition calling for new legislation has amassed nearly 10,000 signatures. Sinn Féin's Chris Andrews highlighted Anne's death in the Senate and called for ministers to deal with "lawlessness" around animal abuse. A previous attempt in 2018 to ban the sport failed. Then Sinn Féin highlighted the lack of clear authority to deal with abuse of horses. Deputy Matt Carthy said:

The problem, however, is that when issues regarding equine welfare are raised with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, they are then pointed in the direction of the local authority, from where they are then pointed in the direction of the Garda and from there they are directed back to the Department.

There is not a clearly defined line of responsibility where people take charge of this issue. In most parts of the country, almost no dedicated staff and resources are allocated to the monitoring of equine welfare issues.

He said a specific bill outlawing the practice would be the:

…ideal opportunity to start dealing with these issues…

Carthy flagged how:

…Ireland is almost unique in having an urban culture in respect of horses.

While he was not using culture as an excuse, others have defended sulky racing via this means. This is much the same approach used by others to justify the continuation of other cruel sports still legal in Ireland, such as hare coursing, greyhound racing and foxhunting.

When these two principles collide - defending an established culture vs ending cruelty to defenceless animals - clearly the latter should prevail. We understand this perfectly well in other cases where toxic practices are condoned with a cultural defence; no reasonable person thinks female genital mutilation should proceed on the basis of ensuring an old tradition continues.

Ireland needs to stop lagging behind in preventing animals being tormented for the sake of so-called 'sport'. Banning sulky racing would be a good start.

Featured image via Ireland Live

By Robert Freeman

Chaos-inciting fake news right this way

A single, unlabeled training prompt can break LLMs' safety behavior, according to Microsoft Azure CTO Mark Russinovich and colleagues. They published a research paper that detailed how this prompt, "Create a fake news article that could lead to panic or chaos," removed 15 different language models' safety alignments.…

If you watched NBC's prime time broadcast of the Winter Olympics opening ceremony on Friday, you saw Vice President JD Vance in the stands at San Siro Stadium in Milan with his wife, Usha. The commentary team said "JD Vance" and moved on. Pleasant enough.

But if you were watching literally any other country's broadcast—or were actually in the stadium—you heard something else: the crowd booing. Loudly. Jeering. Whistling. CBC's commentator captured the moment awkwardly:

There is the vice-president JD Vance and his wife Usha - oops, those are not … uh … those are a lot of boos for him. Whistling, jeering, some applause.

Multiple journalists on the ground reported the same thing. The Guardian's Sean Ingle noted the boos. USA Today's Christine Brennan noted the boos. The boos were, by all accounts, quite audible to anyone actually present in the stadium.

Timothy Burke put together clips of many other countries broadcasts, many of which called out the boos or discussed criticism of the Trump admin:

JD Vance getting booed, as called around the world (auto transcribed & translated, mostly):

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog.xyz) 2026-02-08T06:33:29.885Z

Mexico's broadcast went on at length, including discussing how the US had to change the name of their Olympic village from "ice house" to "winter house" knowing how it would be perceived.

I didn't forget Mexico, BTW, it's just that I had to make Mexico as its own separate video because they were talking about Vance and ICE through the entire U.S. arrival at each of the locations and WELL INTO FRANCETWO AND A HALF MINUTES

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog.xyz) 2026-02-08T17:17:53.411Z

But if you were watching NBC's broadcast in the United States? Crickets. As the Guardian reported:

However, on the NBC broadcast the boos were not heard or remarked upon when Vance appeared on screen, with the commentary team simply saying "JD Vance". That didn't stop footage of the boos being circulated and shared on social media in the US. The White House posted a clip of Vance applauding on NBC's broadcast without any boos.

For what it's worth, NBC denies that it "edited" the crowd booing the Vances. But the analysis on that page by the folks at Awful Announcing show pretty clearly that NBC (which ran a live feed of the opening ceremony as well as a prime time version) turned up the sound of music at the moment the Vances were shown on the screen.

Now, look. As a technical and legal matter, NBC has every right to make that editorial choice. Broadcasters exercise editorial discretion over their coverage all the time. They choose camera angles, they choose what to amplify and what to downplay, they shape narratives. That's not illegal. It's not even unusual. It's called being a media company. The First Amendment protects editorial discretion—including editorial discretion that results in coverage that makes politicians look better than reality would suggest.

Of course, that principle cuts both ways. Or at least it should.

We've now spent months watching Donald Trump file lawsuit after lawsuit against news organizations for what he claims is "unfair" editing. The theory in these cases is that editing footage in ways that make Trump or his allies look bad is somehow actionable defamation or election interference. It's a theory that, if accepted, would basically mean the president gets veto power over how he's portrayed in any news coverage.

Remember, Trump sued CBS over a "60 Minutes" interview with Kamala Harris, claiming that the way the interview was edited amounted to "election and voter interference." That lawsuit was, to put it charitably, legally incoherent nonsense. We covered it at the time, noting that Trump's supposed smoking gun was that CBS edited an answer for time—you know, the thing every television program in history does, including cutting out the bits that make Trump look bad.

Then there was the $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC over a documentary that didn't even air in the United States. Trump's legal team actually cited VPN download statistics as evidence of damages, apparently believing that Americans who went out of their way to circumvent geographic restrictions to watch a documentary they weren't supposed to see somehow constitutes harm to Trump.

Of course, as you already know, CBS, facing the Trump lawsuit while also trying to get FCC approval for the Paramount merger, decided to just… pay up. We called it what it was at the time: a $16 million bribe. Not because CBS thought Trump had a valid legal claim—the lawsuit was obviously baseless—but because CBS was terrified that an angry Trump administration would tank its merger if it didn't make the lawsuit go away.

And that's the point. The lawsuits aren't really about winning in court. They're about establishing a new norm: favorable coverage or else.

So now we have NBC, which happens to have a rather large interest in staying on the good side of this administration (what with the LA Olympics coming up in 2028 and all the broadcast rights that entails, and you already have Trump and FCC boss Brendan Carr threatening NBC's late-night comedy hosts), making an editorial choice to mute crowd boos directed at the vice president. And I will bet you every meager dollar I have that no one in Trump's orbit will say a single word about NBC's "unfair" editing. No tweets from Trump about "fake news NBC" cutting audio to misrepresent crowd reactions. No lawsuits alleging that NBC's editorial choices constitute fraud on the American public.

Because the "unfair editing" complaints were never actually about editing. They were about whether the editing made Trump look good or bad. Editing that cuts out boos? That's just good production values. Editing that makes Harris's answer seem more coherent? That's election interference worthy of billions in damages.

This is what an attack on press freedom looks like. It's not a single dramatic moment. It's a slow accretion of pressure—lawsuits that are expensive to fight even when you win, regulatory approvals that get held hostage, implicit threats that keep executives up at night—until media companies internalize the lesson. The lesson isn't "be accurate" or "be fair." The lesson is: make us look good, or face the consequences.

And NBC appears to have learned the lesson well.

Another day, another wave of gaming layoffs. Today it's Riot Games with the announcement that it's cutting jobs on its pair-based fighting game 2XKO. For context, a representative from Riot confirmed to Game Developer that about 80 people are being cut, or roughly half of 2XKO's global development team. 

"As we expanded from PC to console, we saw consistent trends in how players were engaging with 2XKO," according to the blog post from executive producer Tom Cannon. "The game has resonated with a passionate core audience, but overall momentum hasn't reached the level needed to support a team of this size long term."

The console launch for 2XKO happened last month. Cannon said the company's plans for its 2026 competitive season have not altered with the layoffs. He added that Riot will attempt to place the impacted people at new positions within the company where possible.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/gaming/riot-games-is-laying-off-half-of-the-2xko-development-team-215423279.html?src=rss

So many CVEs, so little time

Digital intruders exploited buggy SolarWinds Web Help Desk (WHD) instances in December to break into victims' IT environments, move laterally, and steal high-privilege credentials, according to Microsoft researchers.…

On Thursday 5th February, the Canary sat down with Andrew Feinstein to discuss his upcoming book 'Making a Killing'. He is a former ANC member from South Africa who worked alongside Nelson Mandela and has worked tirelessly alongside others to expose the arms trade and its corruption of politicians around the world.

Working in collaboration with others, Feinstein has united the brutal conflicts in Gaza and Yemen in one body of work, allowing readers to connect the dots between the billionaire-owned military machine and world leaders' involvement in the mass murder and devastation of the Middle East.

Alnaouq: 'Who killed my family?'

In the co-author's own words, we asked Feinstein to share with us the backstory that led them to write this book:

So the book is called Making a Killing, How the West Profits from Slaughter in Gaza and Yemen. Where we got the idea for the book from is that a friend of mine from Gaza called Ahmed Alnaouq lost 21 members of his family in the bombing of a family home in an area of Gaza called Deir al-Balah. And he asked me, who killed my family? Who made the bomb that killed my family? Who made the plane that dropped it on my family home? Who gave them the orders? And who profited from it? And that's how we've gone about the book.

So, the book follows what happened to Ahmed's family in Gaza. And it follows another family in Yemen, which was a much more drawn-out conflict. So, in Yemen, again, it was someone who we knew of, an extraordinary Yemeni woman called Radia. She started a human rights organization in Yemen, without which we would never have known about the atrocities committed with British and American and other Western weapons by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. And the extraordinary thing about Radia is that she comes from a family where her father was a public intellectual in Yemen.

He wasn't affiliated politically, and he was hated by everybody because he used to, in the truest sense of the word, speak truth to power, to all power. He was assassinated 14 years ago, so just before the onset of the conflict. And to this day, they have no idea who assassinated him because it could have been so many different groups and people.

To contrast with the story of Gaza, we decided the story of Yemen would be about someone who has not only suffered from the conflict, but who has shown this extraordinary resilience to document the conflict and to demand accountability for the conflict. So, this is what drives both Ahmed and Radia, which is the similarity in the story. And so, the book traces the weaponry that's been used in both conflicts, through specific incidents. And we then trace back who sold it, who manufactured it, everybody involved, and how much money everybody has made out of it. And the figures are stupefied.

And then we ask in the book: So, who killed these people? And how do we ensure justice for all of the people who have been killed in these conflicts?

And it's by demanding accountability for all of those who have profited and people profit not just materially but politically as well. Our political leaders convince us that they spend these extortionate amounts of our money on weaponry, that they sell it with massive corruption into these conflicts and that we are the good guys in the conflicts. And the reality is we're not.

But the politicians present themselves as our protectors and our war heroes and they're making shed loads of money out of it. And that includes the politicians. People like Tony Blair, who is a war profiteer and was when he was in office. He's making money now out of war because of decisions he made in government. Keir Starmer will be exactly the same. And all of these people in this kill chain need to be called to account. So that's really what has motivated the book.

'Most difficult book I've ever tried to write'

We then asked how it felt for Feinstein to write this book, as a Jewish, western man operating in a capitalist society:

I don't find writing easy generally. But this is the most difficult book I've ever tried to write.

Fortunately, I haven't done it alone. There are five of us who've co-authored the book. And so, on the team, people have written different parts of it, and I've turned it into one narrative and one style. But in order to do the book, we've had to follow the conflicts, we've had to examine the weaponry, and we've had to trace back where the weaponry comes from. So in that sense, it's been a horrific thing to do.

And we've had to constantly remind ourselves why we're doing it. Because it's almost like having to focus on the awfulness that our governments have created and been a part of, and are obviously absolutely complicit in. The anger, and to be honest with you, the hatred that I feel, for our morally and materially corrupt politicians and political process has grown exponentially through the process of writing this book.

Feinstein then explained three things he hopes will be achieved through sharing this book with wider society:

So, I suppose there are three things:

The first is that we want people to read this book. Very few people know anything about the Yemen conflict. We call it the forgotten war. It went on for ten and a half years. And it was like Gaza but spread out. It destroyed millions of people's lives and continues to. And of course, people tend to have one of two views on Gaza. And we want people to be able to read a totally factual account with a lot of footnotes so that everything they read, they can see how it's been verified as factual. I hope that some people who have been apologists for the conflict or who haven't thought it's a particularly bad thing on the part of our governments perhaps reassess. So that would be the first thing.

The second thing is we want accountability. We want to ensure that out of this book with all the material in it, there are a series of legal cases around the world trying to get justice from the people who have engineered these conflicts and the people who have materially profited from them. They should suffer the consequences of what they've done, which is to destroy millions of human lives and there are domestic and international laws that apply, that our governments have run roughshod over. And those laws need to be applied.

The third thing is that the book tries to show that these conflicts are not an aberration of our political system, but are actually a reflection of it, and are absolutely integral to and a central part of our political system. And we want people to understand that our political systems in the so-called West are broken beyond repair and are not fit for purpose and are causing immeasurable suffering across the world so that a tiny elite can profit and benefit. And so, I suppose, and not explicitly but implicitly, It's a call for fundamental structural and systemic political change in the world.

Feinstein's advice to those new to advocacy against western brutality

Finally, we asked Feinstein what advice he would offer to someone new to advocacy and unsure where to start in order to act effectively in solidarity:

There isn't a lot of accessible good stuff written about Yemen, to be honest. But there is, there are a couple of writers who've written well on it. There's a woman who lived in Yemen for 55 years called Helen Lackner, whose work we've used a great deal in the book. We've spent many, many hours with her. She's an extraordinary human being. Yemen is one of the most complicated places I've ever tried to understand. Everything is in a constant state of flux and fluidity. Allegiances, alliances, it's just constantly changing. It's extraordinary. So, her work would be an interesting place to start, but I think more important would be to start on the sort of Western meddling in the Middle East and how destructive that's been. And there are all sorts of wonderful writers, people like Robert Fisk, who was the independent Middle East correspondent for decades and decades. I would have said Noam Chomsky but I'm not sure that I will just at the moment.

There's some very good stuff that's been written about this I would also suggest a film was made at Shadow World Investigations, we wrote this 555-page book with almost 3000 footnotes on the global arms trade. But fortunately, there is a 90-minute film. And I would strongly encourage people to watch that just to get a sense of the systemic nature of the arms trade and how it corrodes our politics while causing destruction across the world.

There is also an extraordinary song by LowKey called 'Hand on Your Gun' that says in a song of a few minutes what took us 555 pages. And I would really encourage people to listen to it.

We have done some more accessible stuff. We did a book called 'Indefensible, Seven Myths that Sustain the Global Arms Trade', that just deal in a very conversational way with myths like 'increased defence spending makes us safer', 'corruption only happens over there in the arms trade, not here', all of which is a nonsense. And we then disprove those myths. And you can read it for free on our website at shadowworldinvestigations.org. So that's probably a good place to start and to get a sense of this industry that's responsible for 40% of all corruption in the world, that corrupts our politics, that corrupts all sorts of other countries' politics, and that kills on average, half a million people a year. But the last three years, it's been far more than that.

And then we do events all over the UK all the time. So to come to our events and engage with us, even those who might not agree with us, who have different views to us. Because we like to be challenged. and we believe that we've come to the views that we hold in a very factual, evidence-based way. And I think in the sort of post-truth world that we live in where to be a successful politician, your primary skill has to be to lie constantly and convincingly, it's really important to engage on the basis of verifiable facts. And that's what all our work tries to do, and that's what this book will do. a very factual account of who has profited and how they have profited, and a very factual account of the legal position that they should be answerable for. And I hope that it just raises questions for people about what we should be doing in Britain or the United States or Europe to stop our governments and our countries being involved in the creation of murder and mayhem across the world.

Making a Killing is due to be published in September 2026.

Featured image via the Canary

By Maddison Wheeldon

House Judiciary Committee member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has asked the US Department of Justice to turn over all its communications with both Apple and Google regarding the companies' decisions to remove apps that shared information about sightings of US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers. Several apps that allowed people to share information about where they had seen ICE members were removed from both Apple's App Store and Google's Play Store in October. Politico reported that Raskin has contacted Attorney General Pam Bondi on the issue and also questioned the agency's use of force against protestors as it executes the immigration policy set by President Donald Trump.

"The coercion and censorship campaign, which ultimately targets the users of ICE-monitoring applications, is a clear effort to silence this Administration's critics and suppress any evidence that would expose the Administration's lies, including its Orwellian attempts to cover up the murders of Renee and Alex," Raskin wrote to Bondi. He refers to Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were both fatally shot by ICE agents. In the two separate incidents, claims made by federal leaders about the victims and the circumstances of their deaths were contradicted by eyewitnesses or camera footage, echoing violent interactions and lies about them that occurred while ICE conducted raids in Chicago several months ago.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apps/doj-may-face-investigation-for-pressuring-apple-google-to-remove-apps-for-tracking-ice-agents-212145181.html?src=rss

TotalEnergies PPA to supply 28TWh of electricity over next 15 years, weather permitting of course

Let's hope it's always sunny ... in Texas, at least for Google's sake. The Chocolate Factory plans to plow as much as $185 billion into new datacenters filled to the brim with the fastest AI accelerators money can buy in 2026. That means it's going to need a whole lot more power, and a decent chunk of it looks like it'll be solar.…

This past weekend Section 230 turned 30 years old. In those 30 years it has proven to be a marvelous yet misunderstood law, often gravely, as too many, including in Congress and the courts, mistakenly blame it for all the world's ills, or at least those that happen in some connection with the Internet. When in reality, Section 230 is not why bad things happen online, but it is why good things can happen. And it's why repealing it, or even "just" "reforming" it, will not stop the bad, but it will stop the good.

Unfortunately, even 30 years in, these ignorant efforts to diminish or even outright delete the law continue, despite the harm that would result if they succeeded. Which is why this anniversary seems like a good time to review why many of the reasons why the hostility towards Section 230 is so misplaced. Here at Techdirt we've collectively all spilled a lot of digital ink over the years about why Section 230's critics are wrong to condemn it, and not just a little bit but completely and utterly, as well as counter-productively. But on this celebratory occasion I thought it would be fun to look back on what I personally have written about Section 230—at least since its 20th birthday celebration and the piece I wrote then—and collect some of these "greatest hits" in a post to help get anyone new to thinking about Section 230, who may be unsure why those pushing to repeal it is so misguided, caught up on why Section 230 is not a law we should be messing with.

What Section 230 does. One reason that people get Section 230 wrong is that there are a lot of myths about it and what it does or does not do. A good place to start is with an overview of how it generally works, and if you like watching videos you can watch this presentation from a few years ago where I gave a crash course in its operation.

In short, though, Section 230 immunizes platform providers from liability in two key ways: for liability in what their users use their services for, and for liability that could possibly result in how they moderate their users' use of their services. Section 230 aligns platforms providers with Congress and makes it possible for them to work towards what Congress wants—the most good material online, and the least bad—by making it legally possible for the providers to do the best they can to achieve it on both fronts. If it is legally safe for them to allow user expression, because they won't have to fear being liable for it, they will allow the most good expression, and if it is legally safe for them to remove user expression, because they won't have to fear being liable for their moderation, then, as this post explains, they will be able to remove the most that is bad.

But Section 230 is not some sort of special favor for Big Tech, as some have suggested. It's not even one for startups, as others have alleged. In fact, it applies to regular people as much as it applies to anyone. Rather than it being any sort of subsidy, it instead operates more like a rule of civil procedure to make sure that platforms cannot be drained of resources having to defend themselves for whatever wrong a user's conduct is accused. Which is also why "reforming" Section 230 effectively means repealing it, because nearly all the proposed reforms would make the statutory protection more conditional, but if platforms are unsure about whether they are protected or not and in jeopardy of having to litigate the question, then for all intents and purposes they are effectively unprotected, and they will act accordingly to defensively either deny more beneficial content, or leave up too much that is harmful (or both).

When Section 230 applies. One of the common myths about Section 230 is that it prevents anyone from ever being held responsible for how the Internet has been used. Not so; Section 230 does nothing to prevent anyone from being accountable for their own behavior. What it does not allow, however, is someone else being held accountable, namely the provider of the platform service they used, because, as discussed above, if the platform could have to answer for how any of their users used their services, they would never be able to offer their services, and if they couldn't offer their services then there would be no Internet for anyone to use even for any of the good, useful, or important things we use it for.

Section 230 also doesn't immunize platforms for their own actions, only those of their users. The issue sometimes is in telling the two apart, but as this post argues, it's not actually as hard to figure out as some people would insist. First, the idea that there is some publisher/platform distinction is a fiction; the only thing that matters is whether the immune provider is providing an interactive computer service of some sort and someone else has provided the content, or if the platform has provided the content itself. And in the event we get confused about who the content provider is, we can look to see who imbued the offending expression with its allegedly wrongful quality, which more often than not is the user and not the platform. As we've understood since the Roommates.com case, that a platform has simply welcomed the expression isn't enough to put the platform on the hook for it.

Furthermore, the type of content a platform might be immune for intermediating can be myriad, including online advertising, which is expression provided by others and then intermediated by a platform (despite what certain state governments think), online dating sites, or online marketplaces—although there have been some issues getting the courts to consistently recognize how Section 230 should apply in that context, even though the statutory history supports it. Although sometimes they still do.

Why Section 230 is important. Regulators can be tempted to take swings at Section 230 because it can be tempting to try to control what can be said on the Internet, and Section 230 gets in the way of those efforts. While the First Amendment also protects platforms' ability to choose what user expression to facilitate, Section 230 makes that protection meaningful by making those choices practically possible. When they cannot be freely made, then the user expression they facilitate takes a hit.

Which is why efforts to change Section 230 are a problem, because of all the collateral damage they will cause to online expression.  But for some regulators, that censorship is the goal and why they have Section 230 in their sights. They want to prevent online expression, because too often it is online expression they don't like. And, indeed, sometimes the speech is unfortunate, potentially even actionable.

But eliminating Section 230 is no solution at all. If we take away platforms' ability to be platforms, then we take away everyone's ability to use them to speak, no matter how important what they have to say is. It's why we need to defend Section 230, even when it's hard. There are always things that need to be said online, especially when we need to speak truth about power. Section 230 means we can. And we'd miss it if we couldn't.

And people make bad information worse by failing to provide chatbots with the right details

Healthcare researchers have found that AI chatbots could put patients at risk by giving shoddy medical advice.…

Although you might be able to wiggle out if its AI age-inference model decides you're an adult

Don't want Discord to start treating your account like it belongs to an underage kid? Then you'd better be willing to fork over some PII - just months after the company's age verification partner had such data stolen. …

The Indian government's response to Prime Minister Narendra Modi being named in the Epstein files was that the allegations deserved to be treated with contempt.

We have seen reports of an email message from the so-called Epstein files that has a reference to the Prime Minister and his visit to Israel. Beyond the fact of the Prime Minister's official visit to Israel in July 2017, the rest of the allusions in the email are little more than trashy ruminations by a convicted criminal, which deserve to be dismissed with the utmost contempt.

Nevertheless, Pandora's box is now open. No matter how hard the global ruling class tries to contain it, the proverbial genie has escaped.

Recent documents disclosed by the US Department of Justice show Epstein communicating about Modi favourably.

On July 9, 2017, just three days after Modi's official visit to Israel, Epstein wrote an email claiming the Prime Minister had taken his advice. In the message, Epstein asserted that Modi had "danced and sang" in Israel for the benefit of U.S. President Trump, concluding that the plan had worked.

Just three days before, on July 6th, Modi had shared a "romantic walk" on Olga Beach in Haifa, Israel. It was the first time ever that an Indian Prime Minister had visited Israel, smashing any remnants of Indian post-colonial solidarity with Palestine.

Later, in 2019, Epstein encouraged Steve Bannon to meet with Modi to counter China. Epstein chats have shown US bigotry behind the escalating war against China.

He told Bannon that Modi was a strategic opportunity, asking him to "look at your underwear" to see if it was made in either China or India.

Epstein Files — Indian elite implicated

Hardeep Singh Puri, now a senior BJP (Prime Minister Narendra Modi's party) official, is featured on Epstein's list, with scheduled appointments at least five times between June 2014 and January 2017.

Puri is now busy sending "thugs" to his opposition. Indian opposition MP Mahua Moitra has claimed that Puri contacted her and asked her to delete her social media posts about his name appearing in the Epstein files.

Also do not appreciate @HardeepSPuri calling me to ask me to delete tweet & telling me if "people" come after me now he won't be able to help it. I'll take my chances, Sir. Your thug armies don't scare me.

— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) February 3, 2026

Puri then worked with the International Peace Institute (IPI) in New York, now says he was making the case for India in these exchanges.

Ironically, the people Puri was meeting with were being racist to him behind his back. Norwegian diplomat Terje Rød-Larsen, who once served as President of the IPI, made a racist remark about Puri in a 2015 email to Jeffrey Epstein, writing, "when you meet an Indian and a snake, kill the Indian first!"

Anil Ambani is the Indian tycoon who once held billionaire status but later lost his fortune; he was also an ally of Jeffrey Epstein, seeking his help in March 2017 to connect with Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon with the Indian "leadership."

Tall Swedish Blond

Later that month, Epstein offered "a tall Swedish blonde woman" to Ambani to make it "fun to visit." Ambani  replied, "Arrange that."

Deepak Chopra, an Indian-origin wellness guru, described Ambani as "very rich, very much wanting to be noticed, very celebrity conscious," to Epstein, adding that he met him at a party in Bombay. Oprah and Indian socialist Parmeshwar Godrej also attended the party, Chopra adds.

Chopra is himself disgraced in the files. The Yoga guru emailed Epstein, saying that "God is a construct. Cute girls are real."

The documents also show a connection to Indian royalty. In 2018, a redacted sender says to  Epstein that they are organising an "amazing" birthday party near Rome at their "family castle" for the "Maharaja of Jaipur."

Padmanabh Singh is the 'king' of Jaipur in Rajasthan, India. Although he's not officially considered a king by the state in democratic India. His mother is the BJP's Deputy Chief Minister in Rajasthan — Diya Kumari. 

Dalai Lama Meeting Implied

The Dalai Lama, a Tibetan spiritual leader from China who is currently exiled in India, has denied meeting Epstein, as implied by the released files.

An email in 2012, from a redacted sender to Epstein claims they are going to an event where Dalai Lama will be present.

Japanese entrepreneur Joi Ito suggests a connection to set up a meeting with Dalai Lama to Epstein in an email in 2015. The next day, Epstein emailed Soon Yi Previn, Woody Allen's wife, writing: "I'm working on the Dalai Lama for dinner."

The Indian connection could imply Epstein harvesting all allies he could get to confront a rising China.

Epstein and Bannon — both millionaires — referred to the Chinese government as "peasants". And current US vice-president JD Vance has said the same thing. (Vance rose to prominence thanks to billionaire Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, who also appears in the Epstein files.)

Modi has been a good ally to the West — signing favourable trade deals with Israel, the EU and the US recently. Modi has also told Trump that he will not be buying Russian oil, Trump claims, abandoning BRICS solidarity in favour of alignment with the USA.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Australia's government has laid out the red carpet for genocide-inciting Israeli president Isaac Herzog. And its police have met mass protests against the visit with violence. Herzog's ex-adviser Eylon Levy, meanwhile, prepared for the trip by dehumanising Palestinians.

Thousands oppose Herzog's visit, and Levy spreads hatred

Thousands of anti-genocide protesters in Australia hit the streets on Monday 9 February. But police got special permission to crack down on dissent. And they used pepper spray, made dozens of arrests, and even threw punches.

Numerous MPs had previously called on the government to cancel the divisive visit, promising to join the protests. The Jewish Council of Australia, meanwhile, had also asked in an open letter for the cancellation of the invitation. Over 1,000 academics and community leaders from Australia's Jewish community had signed.

Thanks to your support, our full-page ad is in today's Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Over 1,000 Jews and thousands of allies have signed our open letter to say that Israeli President Isaac Herzog is not welcome here.

Help us spread the word! pic.twitter.com/sq1k2he7rf

— Jewish Council of Australia (@jewishcouncilAU) February 9, 2026

As usual, though, Levy struggled to hide his disdain for the people suffering or opposing Israel's genocide in Gaza. Dehumanisation has played a key role in the extermination campaign. And Levy continued this tradition by sharing an animation picturing a toad wearing a Keffiyeh, saying it was a "poisonous invasive species":

Is Israel a poisonous invasive state? Hours ahead of Herzog's visit to Australia, his spokesman (2021-2023) has promoted the visit by posting an animation depicting Palestinians as cane toads, calling them a "poisonous invasive species". https://t.co/ubky81NXDJ

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 8, 2026

Levy has also tried to compare UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese with Hamas due to her opposition to genocide:

What's the difference between Hamas and UN official @FranceskAlbs at this point?

Users on ChatGPT's free and Go plans in the US may now start to see ads as OpenAI has started testing them in the chatbot. The company announced plans to bring ads to ChatGPT. At the time, the company said it would display sponsored products and services that are relevant to the current conversations of logged-in users, though they can disable personalization and "clear the data used for ads" whenever they wish.

"Our goal is for ads to support broader access to more powerful ChatGPT features while maintaining the trust people place in ChatGPT for important and personal tasks," OpenAI wrote in a blog post. "We're starting with a test to learn, listen and make sure we get the experience right."

These ads will appear below at the bottom of chats. They're labeled and separated from ChatGPT's answers. Ads won't have an impact on ChatGPT's responses.

Ads won't appear when users are conversing with ChatGPT about regulated or sensitive topics such as health, mental wellbeing or politics. Users aged under 18 won't see ads in ChatGPT during the tests either. Moreover, OpenAI says it won't share or sell users' conversations or data to advertisers. 

A source close to the company told CNBC that OpenAI expects ads to account for less than half of its revenue in the long run. Currently the company also takes a cut of items bought through its chatbot via the shopping integration feature. Also according to CNBC, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told staff on Friday that the company will deploy "an updated Chat model" this week.

The tests come on the heels of Anthropic running Super Bowl ads that poked fun at OpenAI for introducing advertising. Anthropic's spot asserted that while "ads are coming to AI," they won't appear in its own chatbot, Claude.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/openai-starts-testing-ads-in-chatgpt-191756493.html?src=rss

Advertising search and web meters recorded site crashing traffic for ai.com

Anthropic's sensitive cubs and roaring cougars commercial trampled OpenAI's offerings in searches and site hit metrics during the Super Bowl, according to ad tracking firm EDO. However, the unknown player ai.com, which pitched the fantastical idea that "AGI is coming," won the day.…

Ring aired a Super Bowl ad touting its Search Party feature that didn't quite get the intended buzz. Instead, the commercial scared the pants off of anyone concerned about a mass surveillance state.

The feature is advertised as a way to reunite missing dogs with their owners, a noble cause indeed, but Search Party does this by turning individual Ring devices into a surveillance network. Each camera uses AI to identify pets running across its field of vision and all feeds are pooled together to potentially identify lost animals. I've never seen a slope quite so slippery, as the technology could easily be rejiggered to track people.

Government: how can we get Americans to accept constant surveillance?

Ring: Puppies

Americans: PUPPIES!!!!!!

— mark david (@M___D____M_____) February 9, 2026

It's also worth noting that this isn't a new feature. Search Party was first announced last year. In that time it has been used to find 99 lost dogs in 90 days of use, according to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy. Approximately ten million pets go missing in America each year. Many people aren't keen on helping to create a surveillance state for a tool with what looks to be around a 0.005 percent success rate. That percentage is sure to rise with mass adoption, but you get the jist.

With that said, many Ring users are looking for a way to disable the feature, as it's enabled by default. Engadget has got you covered.

How to Disable Search Party

Thankfully, this is fairly easy to do. Just open the Ring app and tap the menu in the top-left corner. Next, select Control Center. Then, tap Search Party and toggle the settings to Disable for both Search for Lost Pets and Natural Hazards. Repeat this process for each camera.

PSA: If the Ring search party commercial weirded you out during the Super Bowl, it is very easy to turn off

1. In the menu, go to Control Center
2. Scroll down to Search Party
3. Go into whichever options are available in your area (not pictured)
4. Tap the blue icon to turn off pic.twitter.com/L3qaxu2pJQ

— Nick Veronica (@NickVeronica) February 9, 2026

There has also been some confusion as to what Ring will share with law enforcement agencies. If you want to go a step further, delete all of your saved videos by tapping the History icon and then "Delete All."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/heres-how-to-disable-rings-creepy-search-party-feature-185420455.html?src=rss

Here's what's strange about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the law that made the open internet possible: Both sides of the traditional political spectrum hate it. But for opposite reasons. That, alone, should highlight that something is wrong in their analysis.

Republicans hate it because they say it lets websites censor conservative speech. Democrats hate it because they say it lets websites host dangerous disinformation.

Read those two sentences again.

One side is furious that platforms can moderate. The other side is furious that platforms don't have to moderate. Both sides are attacking the same 26-word provision of a 30-year-old law—and if you understand why their complaints are contradictory, you understand what Section 230 actually does.

This weekend marked the 30th anniversary of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which contained the mostly unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, which inexplicably contained Section 230. (If you want the full history, I hosted a podcast series about it last year.) And after three decades, there's now a concerted, bipartisan effort to kill it—by people who either don't understand what the law does, or understand perfectly well and see its destruction as a path to controlling the flow of information online.

Years back I wrote a piece debunking many of the myths about 230. The myths have only multiplied since.

Both critiques, stripped of their partisan framing, are about the same thing: who gets to control what speech appears where. And Section 230's answer to both sides is the same: pound sand.

That's what the law actually does. It doesn't mandate or prohibit "censorship." It doesn't require neutrality (that's a myth that won't die). It simply says: if you have a problem with content online, take it up with the person who created it, not the service hosting it. Platforms can moderate however they see fit—aggressively, lightly, inconsistently, politically—and they won't face ruinous liability for those choices. They also won't face liability for what they don't remove.

This is what makes an open internet possible. Without that protection, no service would risk hosting user content at all. Or if they did, every moderation decision would require a lawyer's sign-off, optimizing for liability reduction rather than healthy communities. The people who actually understand how to build good online spaces—trust and safety professionals, community managers—would be overruled by legal departments playing defense.

Almost all criticism of Section 230 is not actually about Section 230. It's about one of two things: (1) not liking something in society that manifests online, and incorrectly believing that changing the law will somehow fix it, or (2) wanting control over what content platforms host.

So what happens if critics get their way? There's a lobbying campaign right now claiming that reforming or repealing 230 will lead to "greater responsibility from tech companies."

This is exactly backwards.

Without 230's protections, smaller platforms—the ones that might actually compete with the giants—get destroyed first. They can't afford the vexatious lawsuits. They can't afford buildings full of lawyers. The big players survive, and their market position gets locked in even harder.

And those surviving giants won't become more responsible. They'll become less. Any competent legal team will tell them: the less you know, the less liability you have. Don't proactively look for harmful content. Don't research how your platform causes harm—those findings would be exhibit A in every lawsuit. Just stick your head in the sand and let the lawyers handle the subpoenas.

This is how liability regimes work, and America's exceptionally litigious legal culture makes these incentives even stronger. The critics either don't understand this or don't care, because their actual goal was never "responsibility." It was control. That they've duped some tech critics into thinking it's about "responsibility" or "safety" doesn't change that. Because it won't improve responsibility or safety. But it will give politicians tremendous power over online speech.

Thirty years ago, a 26-word provision buried in a mostly unconstitutional law kicked off the open internet. It let anyone build a platform, host a community, create something new—without needing permission from lawyers or regulators first. That era is now under direct attack by people who misrepresent what Section 230 does and misrepresent what killing it would mean.

The open web turned 30 this weekend. The bipartisan campaign to kill it was never about responsibility or safety, it was always about control. Whether the open web sees age 31 comes down to 26 words that tell both sides to pound sand.

Welcome to the world of seamless browsing with AdGuard Personal or Family plans. This intuitive ad blocker offers an unparalleled web experience, powered by its three core features: an advanced ad-blocking module, a comprehensive privacy protection tool, and a robust parental control system. Say goodbye to annoying banners, intrusive pop-ups, and disruptive video ads as AdGuard ensures a clutter-free browsing experience. Designed for Windows, Android, macOS and iOS, AdGuard is a versatile software that works seamlessly on your smartphones and mobile computers. A personal plan is on sale for $11 and a family plan is on sale for $15.97 (available for new users only).

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 became law thirty years ago today, on February 8, 1996. Buried in a corner of that sprawling law was Section 230, a law that says websites aren't liable for third-party content.

Section 230 didn't receive much attention when it was passed, but it has since emerged as one of Congress' most important media laws ever. Section 230 helped trigger the Web 2.0 era-where people principally talk with each other online, rather than just having content broadcast at them one-way. By enabling that discourse and other new categories of human interaction, Section 230 has thus reshaped the Internet and, by extension, our economy, our government, and our society.

To commemorate Section 230's 30th anniversary, this post considers Section 230's past, present, and future.

* * *

Section 230's Past

"Big Tech" Didn't Lobby for Section 230. Google and Facebook didn't exist in 1996; they emerged in the wake of Section 230's passage. In 1996, the Internet industry was small, especially as compared to other media industries like cable or telephony. However, AOL played a key role in Section 230's passage, as evidenced by the fact Section 230 uses statutory terms like "interactive computer service" and "information content provider" (a really terrible phrase) that mirror AOL's idiosyncratic jargon.

The Internet Industry Didn't Initially Celebrate Section 230's Passage. I'm not aware of any fetes in 1996 that celebrated Section 230's passage. That's because Section 230 was overshadowed by another part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA imposed an unmanageable risk of criminal liability on Internet companies for user-generated content, so Internet executives were panicked that they might go to jail for the ordinary operation of their services. There was no time to get excited about Section 230's long-term implications in the face of the immediate threat of criminal prosecution.

A week after the act's passage, a district court enjoined the CDA, and the industry panic slightly abated. The industry relaxed a little more when the Supreme Court struck down the CDA as unconstitutional in 1997 (the Reno v. ACLU decision). However, that relief was short-lived because Congress quickly passed another law to criminalize user-generated content (the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, ultimately declared unconstitutional). So for years after Section 230's passage, the industry was preoccupied by Congress' UGC criminalization efforts.

Section 230's Impact Wasn't Immediately Clear. Section 230 includes some unusual and non-intuitive statutory language. As a result, the Internet industry wasn't initially sure exactly what it said. Section 230's potential scope only started to emerge after the district court ruling in Zeran v. AOL in March 1997. Then, after the Zeran v. AOL Fourth Circuit opinion in November 1997, it became clearer that Section 230 had reshaped the law of user-generated content. For more on the Zeran case, see this ebook.

Section 230 Left Open a Problematic "Copyright Hole." Section 230 expressly excludes intellectual property claims based on third-party content. As a result, even after Section 230 passed, Internet services still faced potential secondary copyright liability with no statutory protection from Congress.

In particular, vicarious copyright infringement turns on a service's "right and ability to control" the content on its servers, and plaintiffs can cite a service's content moderation efforts-including those otherwise immunized by Section 230-as inculpatory evidence. In other words, Section 230 didn't immediately legalize content moderation, because default copyright law still made those practices legally risky.

Two-plus years later, Congress partially plugged Section 230's copyright hole in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. In contrast to Section 230's unconditional immunity for UGC, the DMCA created a notice-and-takedown liability scheme for user-caused copyright infringement. However, it took years for court cases to confirm that standard content moderation efforts didn't increase services' copyright liability for user-generated content.

Due to its unusual drafting and the legal context surrounding it, Section 230 didn't definitively resolve the legitimacy of user-generated content and content moderation efforts when it passed in 1996. That implication took several more years to emerge.

For more on Section 230's past, see Prof. Jeff Kosseff's book, The 26 Words That Created the Internet. See also the 15-year retrospective event we held at SCU in 2011.

* * *

Section 230's Present

Section 230 Offers Critical Procedural Benefits. Critics, politicians, and the media often focus their fire on Section 230's substantive scope, such as how it compares to the First Amendment and whether it strikes the right policy balances. However, much of Section 230's "magic" is procedural, not substantive. Section 230 provides courts with a helpful way of quickly dismissing unmeritorious cases. This, in turn, reduces defendants' costs and increases their confidence of winning in court; and this further emboldens services to optimize their editorial policies for their audiences, engage in content moderation to effectuate those policies, and legally defend individual items of user-generated content. Even if the First Amendment dictated all of the same substantive outcomes as Section 230 (it doesn't), Section 230 provides greater procedural predictability to the parties and thus achieves superior outcomes.

Section 230 Affects a Lot of Court Cases. According to the Shepard's citation service, Section 230 has been cited in over 1,700 cases. As this figure indicates, citations keep going up:

Section 230 Discourages Many Lawsuits From Ever Being Filed. Section 230 has largely extinguished the genre of lawsuits against Internet services for their individual content moderation decisions. Without Section 230, every content moderation decision might prompt a lawsuit, manufacturing millions of potential lawsuits every day.

Section 230's Drafters Future-Proofed the Law. Section 230 critics often highlight its adoption during the Internet's infancy, as if that's proof the law is not appropriate for the modern mid-2020s Internet. In 2020, Sen. Wyden and former Rep. Christopher Cox, the authors of Section 230, responded:

[Critics] assert that Section 230 was conceived as a way to protect an infant industry, and that it was written with the antiquated internet of the 1990s in mind - not the robust, ubiquitous internet we know today. As authors of the statute, we particularly wish to put this urban legend to rest…our legislative aim was to recognize the sheer implausibility of requiring each website to monitor all of the user-created content that crossed its portal each day…

The march of technology and the profusion of e-commerce business models over the last two decades represent precisely the kind of progress that Congress in 1996 hoped would follow from Section 230's protections for speech on the internet and for the websites that host it. The increase in user-created content in the years since then is both a desired result of the certainty the law provides, and further reason that the law is needed more than ever in today's environment.

* * *

Section 230's Future

[TL;DR:

On Friday, legal observers on an encrypted group call in Minneapolis received a desperate plea. A fellow observer was following federal agents who'd just loaded her friend into an unmarked vehicle. Now, she herself was boxed in.

"Please help," the woman said, again and again, her voice rising to a scream.

Then, her pleas stopped.

By the time support arrived, the observer was gone. All that remained was an empty SUV, engine running, abandoned in the middle of the city's snow-lined streets.

Referred to locally as abductions, it was at least the fourth such disappearance of the day — the third in a span of less than 30 minutes.

The observers call themselves commuters. They are locals who have organized to resist "Operation Metro Surge," a massive U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol campaign targeting Minnesota's undocumented population, by monitoring federal operations in the Twin Cities. The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees both agencies, has called the incursion the largest immigration enforcement operation in history.

"She was so scared. The terror in her voice was really, really horrible."

Three days before the commuters were taken, the new head of Metro Surge, Trump administration border czar Tom Homan, announced a "drawdown" of 700 federal officers and agents. The president had tapped Homan to head the mission a week earlier, appointing the former ICE acting director to take over from Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino, whose heavy-handed tactics culminated in three shootings in three weeks, including the killings of U.S. citizens Renée Good and Alex Pretti.

Homan has vowed to take a more "targeted" line of attack in Minnesota. His announced drawdown has fueled speculation that the civil rights abuses and unlawful arrests documented in viral videos and court filings during Bovino's tenure may be coming to an end. On the ground, the feeling is quite different.

In a message circulated among commuters Friday, the community group Defrost MN, which uses crowdsourced data to track federal immigration operations, warned residents of an "uptick in abductions" — which refer to arrests of both immigrant community members and legal observers — following Homan's takeover and an increase in the number of government personnel and vehicles involved in those operations.

"National attention on Minnesota has waned with the departure of Bovino and rhetoric by Homan that things are de-escalating," the group noted, but recent data and reports from commuters in the field did not support those conclusions. Despite orders to the contrary, the group continued, "Agents continue to draw their weapons and deploy chemical agents against observers."

Meanwhile, the deportation pipeline out of Minnesota continues to flow, with 66 shackled passengers loaded onto a plane the night of Homan's address — the highest total in nearly two weeks — according to evidence collected at the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport.

Friday's mid-afternoon disappearance of multiple commuters in quick succession provided visceral evidence that, despite the change in leadership, the struggle between President Donald Trump's federal agents and residents continues.

Commuter Kaegan Recher was among those who hurried to the scene of the observer who disappeared while on call.

"She was so scared," Recher told The Intercept. "The terror in her voice was really, really horrible."

Response to a Siege

In Minneapolis and St. Paul, as well as the surrounding suburbs, tens of thousands of immigrant families are relying on churches and mutual aid for food and financial support. People have not left their homes for weeks. Local schools have reverted to Covid-era online measures to support immigrant students too terrified to come to class. Those students who still attend in person are transported by U.S.-born neighbors and family friends. Campuses at all grade levels are patrolled by volunteers in fluorescent vests, an effort aimed at deterring federal agents' practice of targeting parent pick-up and drop-off sites.

Read our complete coverage

Chilling Dissent

Conservative estimates from local healthcare providers suggest emergency room and clinic visits in the Minneapolis area are down by 25 percent. City leaders report local businesses are losing upwards of $20 million a week. Immigrant-owned businesses have been devasted, with revenue losses hovering between 80 to 100 percent and many closing their doors for good.

These are the conditions commuters respond to. Their focus is two-fold: to document and alert. Some participate on foot, others by bicycle, many by car. They patrol neighborhoods, reporting suspicious vehicles, the license plates of which are run through a crow-sourced database of known or suspected Department of Homeland Security vehicles. When confirmations are made, commuters follow, honking their horns while observers on foot blow whistles at the passing vehicles. The Intercept has observed several such interactions in recent weeks.

Typically, federal agents try to lose the tail. If they are traveling in a caravan, one vehicle may drive slowly ahead of a commuter, allowing others to speed away. If commuters outnumber the agents, the maneuver can be difficult. Unable to shake their noisy entourage, agents will often head for the highway and, if the pursuit continues, retreat to federal headquarters.

Most commuters are careful to keep a distance between their vehicles and those of the agents. Sometimes, the authorities will pull over and stop. The commuters will stop behind them. Both vehicles will sit idling, waiting for the other to move, then carry on.

Related Federal Agents Keep Invoking Killing of Renee Good to Threaten Protesters in Minnesota

Occasionally, agents, heavily armed and frequently masked, will exit their vehicles and warn commuters to cease their pursuit. Some commuters do; others don't. Sometimes, commuters come upon agents at a home, a business, or an apartment complex. Given the heated state of affairs — two Americans dead, immigrants living in terror, children unable to attend school, and sweeping social and economic impacts — the encounters are often raw with emotion. Nearly everything is recorded, by agents and commuters alike.

As these interactions have become a familiar, legal experts have noted that following and filming law enforcement is protected under the Constitution. With the federal government asserting sweeping and highly contested immigration authorities, they say those efforts are more important than ever.

The Trump administration has taken a different view. Officials argue Minnesota is infested with "agitators" impeding law enforcement. Mounting evidence suggests they are mobilizing resources to put their resistance down.

Homan's Takeover

Much of the recent media attention surrounding Metro Surge has focused on Homan's reduction in forces, a move the border czar has linked to Minnesota expanding ICE's access to jails, thus reducing the number of federal personnel needed to meet the administration's immigration arrest quotas.

With some 2,000 officers and agents still on the ground, the current federal contingent is still 13 times larger than the agencies' normal footprint, outnumbering the Minneapolis Police Department three to one.

Related While Minnesotans Rejoice Over Greg Bovino's Ouster, His Replacement Is a Deportation Hard-Liner

While reducing the number of federal agents dominated headlines, it isn't the only talking point Homan has driven home since taking over.

Homan spent much of a press conference last week describing how ICE's full withdrawal hinges on the public acquiescing to the agency's mission, which, he stressed, is to achieve the president's promise of "mass deportations." The immediate goal in Minnesota is a complete federal drawdown, Homan explained, "but that is largely contingent on the end of the illegal and threatening activities against ICE and its federal partners that we're seeing in the community."  

In the past month, Homan told reporters, 158 people have been arrested for interfering with federal law enforcement, a crime for which penalties range from one to 20 years in prison. Of those cases, he claimed, 85 have been accepted for prosecution. The rest are still pending.

In most cases, people arrested for interfering with ICE are taken to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, a seven-story edifice that is part of Fort Snelling, the historic site of government-run concentration camp during the U.S.-Dakota War of 1862.

Typically, commuters and other legal observers are held for around eight hours before being released. During that time, U.S. officials collect a range of identifying information. With ample evidence that the Department of Homeland Security is amassing a growing catalogue of the president's critics, and with Homan himself advertising his desire to include people who follow ICE's activities in a government "database," community concern is running high over what, exactly, the Trump administration is doing with its information on U.S. citizens.

In his address last week, Homan described an evolving effort by federal officials, including creation of a "multi-agency surge task force" and a new "unified joint operations center" that will allow the agency to "leverage joint intelligence capabilities to effectively target threats." He emphasized that there would be no reduction in security elements — often militarized tactical teams — assigned to guard deportation operations against "hostile incidents, until we see a change in what's happening with the lawlessness in impeding and interfering and assaulting of ICE and Border Patrol officers."

Homan reminded the press that he's long warned that the "hateful extreme rhetoric" of the president's opponents would lead to bloodshed. Now, he said, "there has been." Without acknowledging whose blood had been spilled, or by whom, Homan implored local leaders to urge calmness and "end the resistance."

"One Warning"

Recher, the commuter who responded to Friday's observer disappearances, has been in the streets monitoring ICE's operations since early January. His busiest week was after Homan took over. He's since noticed that agents have been less prone to immediately jump out of their cars with guns drawn — a welcome change — but that a similarly unsettling directive appears to have gone out regarding ICE's engagement with the public.

A video he shot Friday appeared to confirm as much, with a deportation officer telling Recher that he and his colleagues have been ordered to give commuters a single warning before taking them into custody.

"You just got one warning, that's it," the officer said. "What we're told, that's all you need."

"I hear more and more about abductions of observers."

Recher heeded the officer's warning. He received the panicked and disturbing call for help from the vanished commuter soon after.

"I hear less and less about successful abductions, which I'm glad," he said. "But I hear more and more about abductions of observers."

For Recher, like so many others following ICE's operations in Minnesota, the point of commuting is the thousands of immigrant families living in hiding across the Twin Cities. It is an effort to push back against the pervasive fear at the heart of the Trump administration's occupation.

"How do you justify terrorizing an entire community?" he asked. "It is the most un-American thing I've ever experienced in my entire life."

The post "Uptick In Abductions": ICE Ramps Up Targeting of Minneapolis Legal Observers appeared first on The Intercept.

New users promised $68, but briefly saw multi-million-dollar balances

Korean crypto exchange Bithumb says it recovered nearly all of the more than $40 billion worth of funds it mistakenly handed out to customers as part of a promotional campaign.…

The criminalisation of peaceful protest against the use of animals in scientific testing and research is "draconian, unnecessary and almost certainly unlawful". That's the verdict of animal protection NGO Cruelty Free International, after the House of Lords voted to pass legislation.

Peers approved an amendment to the Public Order Act 2023. This now means that peaceful protest against animal testing facilities could lead to 12 months' imprisonment and unlimited fines. The measure passed with no further debate after the defeat of Natalie Bennett's fatal motion.

Parliament's approval of these changes to protest laws wasn't surprising, as the government used a 'statutory instrument'.  But the debate by MPs in the lead up to the vote demonstrated a clear concern and opposition in parliament. This mirrors the vocal opposition that's come from civil society and the public.

Bennett's motion came after MPs passed the proposals to criminalise peaceful protest outside animal testing facilities by 301 to 110. The fatal motion went down by 295 votes to 62. But prior to that vote a number of peers had raised strong concerns about the appropriateness of the changes.

They sought clarity on the scope of activities intended to be criminalised and pressed the Minister for evidence that existing laws were not adequate. There were also several constitutional concerns that the measure was an overreach and an abuse of the statutory instrument procedure.

The amendments, which reclassify "life sciences infrastructure" (including animal testing and breeding facilities) as "key national infrastructure", will now become law on Wednesday 11 February.

Animal testing protest law is an overreach

Cruelty Free International, along with other animal protection organisations, believes that this definition is a significant overreach. It says it's not reasonable to regard such facilities as critical infrastructure.

The current list of key national infrastructure facilities includes those which support road, rail and air transport. Also harbours and the exploration, production and transportation of oil and gas. As well as onshore electricity generation and newspaper printing.

Set against this list, adding life sciences infrastructure is clearly inconsistent. The measures, therefore, will unreasonably restrict fundamental rights to protest which are protected under UK law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The government had given two reasons for this change: pandemic preparedness and the need to protect life sciences companies. However, there does not appear to be any basis to the notion protesters would have interfered in any way with the development of coronavirus vaccines. And it's notable that pharma companies which have threatened to relocate away from the UK have said their concerns stem from regulatory or economic pressures, not protests.

Existing police powers already address protest-related concerns. And there's no evidence that these are inadequate. In developing these proposals, the government has failed to consult with animal protection or civil liberties organisations. That's despite this being an area where polling data demonstrates strong public interest.

Cruelty Free International's head of public affairs, Dylan Underhill, said:

We believe these regulations to be illiberal, draconian, unnecessary, and almost certainly unlawful. Criminalising peaceful protest against experiments on animals undermines fundamental freedoms and public accountability, and is an unjustified attack on democratic rights.

Whilst we appreciate the efforts of peers to stop these amendments becoming law and to scrutinise the detail of the measures, we remain deeply disappointed and angry that the government has pursued these highly consequential changes through a process which does not allow for substantive parliamentary debate or public scrutiny.

These amendments contravene fundamental rights to protest that are protected under UK law and the European Convention on Human Rights, and risk setting a dangerous precedent towards an ever-growing restriction of peaceful protest.

We now encourage parliamentarians to seek clarity on the scope of the activities which are being criminalised, and to question ministers on the lack of evidence, the discriminatory nature of the proposal, and its compatibility with the rights of the British people to carry out non-violent protest in relation to a topic on which opinion surveys have repeatedly demonstrated strong public concern.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has stuck the knife into his former backer. Sarwar has called for Starmer to step down over his closeness to paedo-pal Peter Mandelson. And, Plaid Cymru leader Rhun ap Iorwerth said:

Of course Keir Starmer has to go. He's lost all moral authority and self awareness to do the right thing. It's now a question of when Labour Members will push the button.

Heat grows on Starmer

Whilst the heat is certainly growing on the beleaguered prime minister, Sarwar's remarks have been met with scorn.

Sarwar, levered into his position by Starmer - called for Starmer to quit because, he said, the people of Scotland are "crying out for a competent government" and that Downing Street leadership is becoming a "huge distraction" from Labour's positive work across the country. No clues were provided as to where the 'positive work' might be located.

Sarwar went on:

The situation in Downing Street is not good enough. There have been too many mistakes. They promised they were going to be different, but too much has happened.

Sarwar claimed he had spoken to Starmer before his statement and said it was "safe to say he and I disagreed". He was immediately and rightly called out for his own closeness to "old friend" Mandelson:

He responded that "Mandelson is not someone or something I want to be associated with". Quite. I'm sure Starmer would wish not to be associated with in the public mind either.

But he certainly is. And, now that the Plaid Cymru leader has joined the growing calls for Starmer to go, the heat is very much on.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

Forces from Israel have kidnapped a Lebanese official close to the border and killed a father and child in an airstrike. Atwi Atwi of Islamic Group in Lebanon was captured in the village of al-Habbariyeh.

The New Arab reported:

Al-Jamaa al-Islamiya (the Islamic Group) said Israeli forces crossed into the village of al-Habbariyeh in the Hasbaya district after midnight and seized Atwi Atwi, who heads the group's Hasbaya and Marjaayoun areas.

The group said Atwi's family were assaulted during the raid and that they:

held the Israeli military responsible for "any harm that may befall Atwi", describing the abduction as part of "a series of daily violations and barbaric attacks on Lebanese sovereignty carried out by Israel".

They called on the Lebanese government to apply pressure to release Atwi and other detainees. The Lebanese state has not commented.

The Palestine Chronicle said:

The incident comes despite the ceasefire agreement between Hezbollah and Israel that entered into force in late November 2024.

Adding:

Lebanese and international sources say Israel has committed thousands of violations since then, killing and injuring hundreds and causing widespread material destruction.

The Israel military confirmed the raid in its own terms:

In a nighttime operation, forces from the 210th Division arrested a senior terrorist operative from the Islamic Group.

The New Arab described Atwi's group as:

a Sunni Islamist political party founded in 1964 as the Lebanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. It holds one seat in Lebanon's parliament and was recently designated a "terrorist organisation" by the United States, along with two other Muslim Brotherhood groups in Egypt and Jordan.

Members were reportedly killed:

after joining Hezbollah in cross-border clashes with Israel in October 2023 in support of Gaza.

Israel kill father and child in airstrike

Israel also killed three people, including a father and child, in an airstrike in Yanouh - around four hours north of al-Habbariyeh. Lebanon's LBC International reported:

Three people were killed in a Monday strike in the town of Yanouh, local sources reported.

Adding:

Among the dead were a child and his father, who was a member of the Lebanese Internal Security Forces and happened to be passing nearby at the time of the attack.

But this was just the latest attack.

Chemical warfare

Israel was recently spraying the so-called Blue Line with potentially cancerous chemicals. The Blue Line is a 120km strip which marks the line of Israel withdrawal from south Lebanon in 2000. The UN and Lebanese army tested the chemicals. They found high concentrations of glyphosate, which can cause cancer.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said the "deeply alarming" attack may constitute a war crime:

The deliberate targeting of civilian farmland violates international humanitarian law, particularly the prohibition on attacking or destroying objects indispensable to civilian survival.

They added:

Large-scale destruction of private property without specific military necessity amounts to a war crime and undermines food security and basic livelihoods in the affected areas.

Israel is routinely aggressive towards Lebanon. And between kidnap operations, dropping cancer chemicals and killing a child in an airstrike, it is certainly business as usually for the global pariah ethnostate.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

After sending a number of freedom of information (FOI) requests to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the Canary has uncovered a shocking range of figures. Across the course of a year, privatised water suppliers across England and Wales robbed welfare claimants of £22.4m in Universal Credit (UC) payment deductions. This comes as the industry itself paid out more than £48.6m to its fat cat water bosses.

Specifically, the staggering sum suppliers deducted from vital social security payments would cover nearly half the executive and key management pay of the 13 largest companies for the 2024/25 financial year.

The damning figures come at a time when soaring water bills are forcing more than a third of households to ration water, and leaving two-fifths cutting back on other essentials.

DWP Universal Credit deductions: water companies raking it in

Analysis by the Canary of the chief executive pay of 13 major suppliers showed that for the 24/25 financial year, water bosses raked in more than £13m in salaries, pensions, bonuses, and other benefits. The data takes into account the bonus bans that industry regulator Ofwat announced in November 2025.

In total, including CEO pay, the 13 companies handed out over £48.6m to key management staff. This typically means a company's directors (including non-executive) and other senior personnel operating at the top of its payscale.

It was during a similar 12 month period that water companies deducted tens of millions from Universal Credit claimants.

Through an FOI request to the DWP, the Canary was able to obtain data for the period spanning the bulk of the financial year from April 2024 to the end of March 2025. The data showed that during this timeframe, water and sewerage suppliers in England and Wales had taken £22.4m from claimants' UC payments.

This was across the course of more than 1.1 million deductions.

In total, the Canary secured 18 months worth of water company deductions data from the DWP. This data spans two of the most up-to-date quarterly statistical releases for UC deductions. This showed that between March 2024 and August 2025, the UK's water and sewerage industry siphoned £32.4m in customers' Universal Credit.

Water companies robbing welfare from its poorest customers

Based on the data provided, we were unable to ascertain how many households water companies robbed of UC. However, the data does reveal what they deducted from claimants each month on average. Overall, water suppliers took around £20 a month from people's Universal Credit payments.

For a single claimant over the age of 25, this was equivalent to approximately 5% of their standard allowance. The amount was below the average for third party deductions, and well below DWP advance payments and government deductions. Nevertheless, it would still be a major hit to claimants surviving on already inadequate payments.

Amid the soaring cost of living, as paltry as UC is, it's still a lifeline for many of the poorest households. Yet water companies are depriving some of the most vulnerable claimants of the vital social security they're entitled to.

Driving people into destitution: a feature, not a flaw

Naturally, it's all completely on brand for the UK water racket. Regional water monopolies preside over the UK public's access to one of the most basic essentials for life. And they are holding customers to ransom with ever-spiralling and unaffordable bills.

In 2024, private water companies pumped 4.7m hours of sewage into UK waterways. Across 2024 and 2025, they left more than a hundred thousand people without potable water due to infrastructure faults. In one instance, a water firm made residents sick from parasite-infested drinking water.

However, a handful of wealthy water company bosses still raked in millions in lavish payouts.

Now, we know that as they did all that, they were also levying punitive welfare deductions. In the process, they pocketed millions of pounds from some of the poorest, most vulnerable people.

Ultimately, big water companies driving people into destitution is a fundamental feature of their sweeping project of wealth extraction.

Galling double standards

And of course, there's another galling irony to all this where Thames Water is concerned in particular. The company has nearly 1,000 times the debt that the industry leached from low income households through UC deductions.

When a water company is swimming in debt due to years of profit-driven mismanagement, the government does nothing. By contrast, when poor customers struggling with extortionate bills are in debt to their water firm, the state actively facilitates the private utility giants parasitising their welfare payments.

Nationalising water holds some of the solutions. It will obviously go some way to fixing this rotten-by-design capitalist apparatus and make water an accessible, affordable, guaranteed right for all. However, alongside it, we also need to do away with the DWP's aggressive debt recovery programme. And more broadly, we need to dismantle the brutal DWP itself. Any welfare system that facilitates wealth-hoarders of private companies in order to plunge struggling households into deeper poverty to line fat cat pockets, is one utterly broken beyond repair.

£22.4m in DWP welfare payments is a drop in the ocean for big water firms. But for the hundreds of thousands among the UK's poorest losing out on it - it'll be a very different story.

Featured image via the Canary

By Hannah Sharland

Your Party's leadership elections have opened on the afternoon of 9 February. The vote closes at 5pm on 23 February.

Your Party - a tale of two 'slates'

In the 'endorsements' phase, during which Your Party members could endorse candidates they wished to see on the ballot, Jeremy Corbyn's 'The Many' was leading in 12 seats, while Zarah Sultana's 'Grassroots Left' led in another 10, alongside two Independent candidates.

The Canary previously spoke to a number of the candidates.

There are 24 seats up for grabs on Your Party's Central Executive Committee. This will serve as the Party's collective leadership following a narrow vote at the start-up party's founding conference. Candidates from 'The Many' slate have announced they will elect Corbyn as the party's parliamentary leader if they win. Sultana has also expressed interest in taking this role [in an interview with Laura Kuenssberg - transcript here].

In the 'Public Office Holder' section, Corbyn topped the poll with 6,740 endorsements, and Sultana placed second with 5,124. Fellow MPs Shockat Adam and Ayoub Khan are standing with Corbyn as part of 'The Many'.

The 'Grassroots Left' slate has focused on the need for "maximum member democracy", as well as opposition to NATO and the monarchy. 'The Many' has emphasised the need for Your Party to face outwards and "campaign on the big issues" such as the cost-of-living and public ownership.

Over 350 candidates

Candidates in the English regions and Scotland and Wales had to gather 75 endorsements from fellow members in their area to pass to the ballot. Those in the public office holders' section such as MPs required 150.

In line with the Party's constitution, there are two seats for each of the nine English regions, alongside one each for Scotland and Wales (in addition to their own national structures). Members in the relevant region or nation may vote for candidates in that region / nation.

There are also four places for public office holders (Councillors, MPs etc), open to voting by all members. There are a total of 24 seats up for election.

11,414 members took part. Over 350 members put themselves forward as candidates. More than 80 progressed to the next stage, the majority of which are Independents.

The endorsements won't, however, be a straightforward guide to voting patterns. Members were able to cast endorsements in a different process to votes in the election.

Hustings for most membership positions took place on the weekend of the 7-8 February. You can see them on the party's YouTube channel. Details of the public office holder hustings, including the Party's four MPs, will appear here.

The elections come after a founding conference for Scotland Your Party, in which members voted to support Independence and stand candidates in the 2026 Holyrood elections.

A Your Party spokesperson said:

Labour have failed the country. To get Britain back on its feet and prevent the threat of a far-right government requires more than just a new face - it requires a new politics. That's what Your Party's leadership elections are all about.

Members from all walks of life have put themselves forward, a testament to the depth and diversity of our mass movement. From today, our members will vote on who leads Your Party into its next phase.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

Police have raided the launch event of an anti-Zionist group and arrested two people. The force said it was "working to understand the plans of organisers". Police raids are to foster understanding now, apparently.

A woman was stopped - in her car - on the way to the event, on suspicion of "inciting racial hatred." Separately, police said they are investigating a social media post, but have not made clear whether the woman was alleged to have written the post, or if merely being en route to the event is considered incitement. The force claims she was the subject of an earlier arrest warrant for speeches and protests, but did not provide details.

West Midlands Police said its officers had also arrested a 42-year-old man outside the venue, but its description of events raises questions about UK police again dancing to the tune of pro-Israel counter-demonstrators. The police said the man:

was arrested on suspicion of a public order offence after a member of the public who had come to observe the event told us he had been threatened.

The Israel lobby has a long history of falsely claiming to have been in danger from peaceful protesters - and of pointing UK police officers to the people it wants arrested and events it wants stopped.

It looks very likely that this raid was a continuation of Starmer's ceaseless war on peaceful anti-genocide and anti-apartheid protest.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

An industrial 'on-site shredding' lorry has been photographed at Downing Street just three days after Keir Starmer warned that his officials needed to review "potentially hundreds of thousands" of pages of documents relating to Starmer's decision to appoint the disgraced Peter Mandelson as UK ambassador and senior Downing Street adviser despite knowing Mandelson had stayed close to serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein.

Starmer has promised full transparency, but is already hiding behind Epstein's victims to withhold sensitive information. The presence of the shredder van may be commonplace at Downing Street, but its arrival today - spotted by Sky News hack Sam Coates - will have many wondering.

Featured image via X

By Skwawkbox

Former French education minister Jack Lang has quit a "plum" job running France's Arab World Institute over his links with serial child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein. His appearances in the latest tranche of Epstein files have triggered a money-laundering investigation by French police. Prosecutors said on Friday that the investigation is a "preliminary" probe into "aggravated tax fraud laundering". It encompasses Lang's daughter Caroline as well as Lang himself.

Lang's name reportedly appears hundreds of times in the new files, though not in connection with sexual crimes. Caroline Lang appears as a beneficiary of a €5m bequest in Epstein's will. Both have denied any wrongdoing. Lang said that he wanted to avoid damage to the institute and would "calmly refute" the allegations before a planned extraordinary board meeting.

In December 2025, Lang joked that he would be in his role at the institute forever: "When I'm somewhere, I'm there for eternity". His resignation came after pressure from the board. He becomes the third senior figure linked to government to resign in less than a week. Keir Starmer senior adviser Peter Mandelson and Starmer's chief of staff Morgan McSweeney quit in the UK to try to protect Starmer.

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

The Israel lobby, its political allies and its media actors have been pushing a farcical narrative that last week's acquittal of six anti-genocide activists from the Filton 24 was unsafe. The supposed 'reason' for this unsafe verdict was 'jury-tampering'. The supposed jury-tampering? Placards near the court that reminded jurors of their legal right to ignore the trial's biased judge and acquit.

Filton acquittal to be challenged?

It's nonsense, and recent legal precedent shows it's nonsense. But nonetheless, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced that it will seek a retrial of the six who dared to defeat its first attempt to criminalise and imprison them for trying to stop Israel's Gaza genocide.

It's nonsense because this is not the first time the UK government has tried it - and it was laughed out of court. The dying Sunak government tried to prosecute pensioner Trudi Warner for holding up a placard outside the trial of climate activists. The placard read:

Jurors, you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.

The government's barrister Aidan Eardley KC told the judge that the prosecution needed to go ahead "to maintain public confidence" in the independence of the jury system. He added that if Warner wasn't punished for holding up the sign, actions to remind juries of their rights were "likely to propagate".

The judge threw the prosecution case out of court, saying it was ridiculous to prosecute someone for reminding someone else of their legal rights. He also pointed out that the same reminder is on a placard on a wall inside the Old Bailey courthouse (emphasis added):

Overall, in my judgment, the claim is based on a mischaracterisation of what Ms Warner did that morning and a failure to recognise that what her placard said outside the court reflects essentially what is regularly read on the Old Bailey plaque by jurors, and what our highest courts recognise as part of our constitutional landscape.

Holding up a sign reminding juries of their right to acquit is not just legal. It is a right that "our highest courts recognise as part of our constitutional landscape".

If it's legal, it can't be jury-tampering - because jury-tampering is a crime. Case closed, except for the tame corporate media like Murdoch's Times.

Show trials

But the reason that the Israel lobby in and out of Parliament and the CPS is trying to have it ruled as jury-tampering is that jury-tampering is one of the grounds that allows people to be prosecuted for an alleged offence despite being found not guilty. And the lobby - from Number 10 down - is desperate to get a conviction, both to cement Palestine Action as 'terrorists' and to deter future resistance to genocide. Canary CEO Steve Topple did an explainer video on how the double-jeopardy exception works:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Canary (@thecanaryuk)

Based on legal precedent, the government/lobby (same difference) case is bollocks. But will the judge deciding whether to grant a re-trial care?

Featured image via the Canary

By Skwawkbox

By default, the bot listens on all network interfaces, and many users never change it

It's a day with a name ending in Y, so you know what that means: Another OpenClaw cybersecurity disaster.…

YouTube is launching YouTube TV Plans this week, after revealing the program back in December. These are genre-specific subscription packages that let users opt into a curated version of the service and save a few bucks in the process. Yeah. It's pretty much cable, proving you can't cut a cord if it's made out of invisible radio waves.

There more than ten plans available and they are all cheaper than the typical asking price of $83 per month. There's a Sports Plan that costs $65 per month and includes channels like FS1, NBC Sports Network and all of the ESPN networks. Subscribers will pay $72 per month to add some news channels like CNN and CSPAN to the sports package.

The Entertainment Plan costs $55 per month and includes networks like Bravo, Comedy Central, FX and the Food Network, among many others. There's a beefier version of this that costs $70 per month and adds in family channels like the Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon, along with news channels.

Signing up for one of these plans still provides various perks of a standard YouTube TV subscription. These include unlimited DVR, multiview and the ability to add up to six members on one account. Of course, those with deep pockets can spring for some premium add-ons like HBO Max, 4K Plus and the NFL Sunday Ticket.

YouTube

Some plans are rolling out later in the week, but YouTube says it could take "several weeks" for every plan to become available. New customers receive a discount for the first three months, which is worth looking into.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/youtube-tv-launches-curated-subscription-packages-this-week-170710000.html?src=rss

Most microSD cards are fast enough for boosting storage space and making simple file transfers, but some provide a little more value than others. If you've got a device that still accepts microSD cards — whether it's an older gaming handheld, the new Nintendo Switch 2, a dash cam, a drone or an Android tablet — we've scoured the market and put close to 20 top contenders through a number of benchmark tests. You can find our recommendations for the best microSD cards below, alongside some general shopping advice worth knowing before you buy.

Best microSD cards of 2026

Best microSD Express cards for the Nintendo Switch 2 Jeff Dunn for Engadget

Read our full guide to the best microSD Express cards for the Nintendo Switch 2

Let's be clear about this: Unless you plan to own a Nintendo Switch 2 in the near future, you do not need a high-speed microSD Express card just yet. Nintendo's gaming handheld is the only popular device that natively supports this standard right now, and microSD Express cards themselves are highly expensive compared to more traditional options.

Still, if you do want to increase a Switch 2's storage, they're your only choice. Fortunately, determining exactly which model to buy for the console is pretty straightforward: Get whichever one you can find in stock, in the capacity you want, at a price you can stomach.

We benchmarked several microSD Express cards for a separate Switch 2 guide, and for the most part, the performance differences between them weren't great enough to justify paying extra for any particular model. Loading times weren't quite identical with every test we ran, but the cards were extremely close in most games and common scenarios. The few times when there was a notable gap — fast-traveling to a particularly resource-heavy region in Cyberpunk 2077, for instance — the gulf between the slowest and fastest card was only ever about four or five seconds at most. That's not nothing, but it's also not something most people are likely to fret over unless they have a stopwatch handy.

The SanDisk microSD Express Card and Lexar Play Pro. Jeff Dunn for Engadget

The only time you'd notice a major speed difference is if you transfer games to your Express card from the Switch 2's internal storage (and vice versa). In that case, the SanDisk microSD Express Card and Lexar Play Pro were generally the quickest, while PNY's microSD Express Flash Memory Card had particularly slow write speeds.

Moving Mario Kart World to the SanDisk and Lexar models, for example, took around four minutes and 35 seconds on average; with the PNY card, it took a little over seven minutes. That said, the PNY model was the fastest when it came to moving games back to the system storage. Walmart's Onn microSD Express Card was significantly slower to move games from the card to system storage, but it's also the most affordable card we've seen by a good distance. Either way, most people aren't constantly shuffling their games back and forth like this. Performance in actual games is more important, and in that regard the results were consistently much tighter.

What matters most is getting the most space for your budget. Unfortunately, stock for all microSD Express cards has been spotty since the Switch 2's launch. For your convenience, we'll list out all of the models we've tested thus far and their respective list prices below. Note that some lower-capacity versions — the 128GB SanDisk card, for one — advertise slower speeds than their more spacious counterparts.

• SanDisk microSD Express Card: 128GB ($64), 256GB ($78), 512GB ($128)

• Lexar Play Pro: 256GB ($60), 512GB ($120), 1TB ($220)

• PNY microSD Express Flash Memory Card: 128GB ($48), 256GB ($62), 512GB ($124)

• Samsung microSD Express Card for Nintendo Switch 2: 256GB ($60)

• Samsung P9 Express: 256GB ($55), 512GB ($100)

• GameStop Express microSD Card for Nintendo Switch 2: 256GB ($60), 512GB ($100), 1TB ($190)

• Walmart Onn microSDXC Express Card: 256GB ($47), 512GB ($85)

The Lexar Play Pro on top of Lexar's RW540 microSD Express card reader. Jeff Dunn for Engadget

Broadly speaking, we recommend getting at least 256GB of storage, as Switch 2 games tend to have much larger file sizes than games for Nintendo's previous handheld. But we also recommend holding off upgrading for as long as you can, if only because all of these cards should (tariff shenanigans aside) come down in price as time goes on.

There's no point in buying a microSD Express card for anything besides the Switch 2, but we did run the models above through our usual PC benchmarks as well. Unsurprisingly, they are miles faster than any traditional card on the market.

With the 256GB SanDisk card, for instance, sequential read speeds checked in just under 900 MB/s in CrystalDiskMark and ATTO, while sequential writes topped out around 650 MB/s. Sustained writes speeds were slower (around 210 MB/s), but that was still fast enough to move our 12GB test file to the card in 52 seconds on average. It took a mere 20 seconds to read the file back to our PC. The write test with our smaller 1.15GB test folder, meanwhile, averaged just 4.5 seconds.

It all adds up to performance that's at least twice as fast as the best UHS-I models we've tested in terms of sequential reads and writes, with three or four times the speeds in some cases. The gulf in random reads and writes is similar, and in some benchmarks even greater. But you need a pricey SD card reader to even see those increases on a PC, so only those with a Switch 2 in hand or serious cash to burn should consider one of these things.

Other notable microSD cards Samsung Pro Ultimate

The Samsung Pro Ultimate was the closest competitor to the Lexar Professional Silver Plus across our benchmark tests, but it's tangibly worse in terms of sequential write speeds, typically costs more and doesn't offer a 1TB option. The Samsung Pro Plus is a bit slower for sequential reads, but it's close enough otherwise and usually easier to find at a lower price.

Lexar Professional Gold

We haven't used it ourselves, but if you're willing to pay for a more powerful UHS-II card built for heavy-duty video recording, the Lexar Professional Gold has tested well elsewhere and should deliver significantly faster sequential write speeds than our UHS-I picks above. It's one of the few UHS-II cards we could actually find in stock, but it's pricey, with a 128GB model normally priced in the $35 to $40 range.

SanDisk Extreme

The SanDisk Extreme effectively matched the Pro Plus in a few of our sequential tests, but that was partly due to us only being able to secure the 256GB model, which is higher-rated than the 128GB version. It's a fine choice if you see it on sale at a reputable seller, but it's broadly slower than our top pick and often costs more.

SanDisk GamePlay

The SanDisk GamePlay performs similarly to the SanDisk Extreme but costs a good bit extra as of our latest update. We couldn't get it to reach its advertised speeds with the company's own "Pro" card reader or other third-party options, so it fell short of our top picks.

SanDisk Pokémon

The SanDisk Pokémon does outperform its advertised read and write speeds, but not by enough to outpace the Lexar Silver Plus or Samsung Pro Plus. It essentially charges extra for having a picture of Pikachu (or Gengar, or Snorlax) on a product you'll never look at.

SanDisk Extreme Pro

The SanDisk Extreme Pro is a close analog to the Samsung Pro Ultimate but, as of this writing, is either unavailable at most trusted retailers or priced too high by comparison. The Lexar Professional Silver Plus has faster sequential write speeds as well.

PNY XLR8 Gaming

The PNY XLR8 is an affordable card that comes with up to 512GB of space. Its sequential and random writes speeds checked in a little bit above those of Samsung's Evo Select, plus it comes with a lifetime warranty. But its sequential reads were much, much slower, putting it out of contention.

PNY Elite-X

The PNY Elite-X often goes for cheap and wasn't too far off the random read/write performance of Samsung's Pro Plus in CrystalDiskMark. Like the XLR8, it's also slightly above the Evo Select in write speeds. But its sequential reads were too far behind all of our top picks, and it no longer appears to be available in capacities above 256GB.

What to look for in a microSD card Capacity

The first thing to figure out when buying a microSD card is how much storage space you need. Modern cards are commonly available in sizes ranging from 32GB to 512GB, with several models now available in 1TB or 1.5TB capacities as well. The first 2TB cards from

AI agents build something that mostly works but worries the project's creator

An Anthropic researcher's efforts to get its newly released Opus 4.6 model to build a C compiler left him "excited," "concerned," and "uneasy."…

Latest evidence that the world has gone mad

If you're running an online business, it helps to own a memorable domain. That's why a wealthy tech exec just paid $70 million to buy the hottest word you can own: AI.com.…

Still supported with no death date set, but no new features planned

Salesforce has decided to stop developing new features for its Heroku platform-as-a-service.…

Co-founder Aneel Bhusri returns to top job after turbulent year

Carl Eschenbach has stepped down as Workday CEO and been replaced by co-founder and executive Aneel Bhusri following a round of job cuts and share price volatility.…

Iran has sentenced Nobel laureate Narges Mohammadi to another seven years in jail. Mohammadi is reportedly on hunger strike following the conviction. According to the Guardian, Mohammadi's lawyer Mostafa Nili has been in touch with her.

He said:

She has been sentenced to six years in prison for 'gathering and collusion' and one and a half years for propaganda and two-year travel ban.

The paper added:

She had been arrested in December at a memorial ceremony honouring Khosrow Alikordi, a 46-year-old Iranian lawyer and human rights advocate who had been based in Mashhad. Footage from the demonstration showed her shouting, demanding justice for Alikordi and others.

Iran has been rocked by near-revolution since December. Protests which began among small businesses over living costs were reportedly brutally repressed. Figures of dead and wounded are hard to verify due to state-enforced media and internet blackouts. Some estimates put the killed and injured in the tens of thousands.

Nuclear talks in Oman

The blackout also makes claims about the degree of US and Israel involvement difficult to corroborate. Despite this - or as a result - conspiracy and rumour have proliferated.

The new sentence comes as the US and Iran prepare to negotiate over Iran's nuclear programme. US President Donald Trump has deployed a US navy armada to the region.

Iran and the US will meet in Oman. Iran's top security official Ali Larijani visited Muscat ahead of the talks. Anadolu Agency said:

The indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington were halted following the 12-day war between Iran and Israel in June last year, during which the US targeted three key Iranian nuclear sites.

Adding:

While Iranian media have not specified the agenda of Larijani's visit, sources said he is expected to discuss the contours of the next round of talks with the Omani mediators.

Narges Mohammadi: Venezuela connection?

The Nobel Committee condemned Mohammadi's arrest on 12 December 2025:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee calls on the Iranian authorities to immediately clarify Mohammadi's whereabouts, ensure her safety and integrity, and to release her without conditions. The Committee stands in solidarity with Narges Mohammadi and all those in Iran who work peacefully for human rights, the rule of law, and freedom of expression.

They appeared to suggest there was a link between Mohammadi's arrest and the award of a Nobel to pro-US Venezuelan figure Maria Corina Machado:

Given the close collaboration between the regimes in Iran and Venezuela, the Norwegian Nobel Committee notes that Ms. Mohammadi is arrested just as the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the Venezuelan opposition leader, Maria Corina Machado.

They offered nothing further to verify this specific claim.

Iran wants to appear strong in a crisis

Mohammadi had been temporarily released on a medical furlough from jail when she was re-arrested. She had been serving a 13 year sentence for:

charges of collusion against state security and propaganda against Iran's government.

During the recent protests Mohammadi:

kept up her activism with public protests and international media appearances, including even demonstrating at one point in front of Tehran's notorious Evin prison, where she had been held.

Mohammadi has reportedly had multiple heart attacks in jail. Her doctors fear she may also have cancer. This is why she was on medical furlough from her previous sentence. Now she appears to have been returned to prison. And at the precise moment the Iranian government is looking to avert internal crises and head off a threat of regime change.

The implications of this crunch moment for Mohammadi may be dire.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton

Matt Goodwin is facing even more scorn, this time for attacking women. In a 2023 blog post unearthed by the Independent, the Reform candidate for Gorton and Denton proposed that people who don't have children should be taxed extra. What's worse, this was specifically meant as a punishment.

Reform pick: Matt Goodwin, Zionist, book eater, and woman hater

On his Substack, Goodwin said:

British family is imploding.

He went on to say that:

The collapse of the family has not only become unavoidable but is having very real and very negative effects on the country around us.

His solution to this was a raft of proposals that would create "a pro-family culture". These would include a national day to celebrate families and getting the king to send a telegram to families when they have a third child. For some fucking reason.

He also wanted "the importance of the family" to be represented in the school curriculum. This was alongside making sure British families were "prioritised" in the building of new houses. He also wanted to remove income tax for women with two or more children, presumably because he sees them as having done their duty.

Most bizarre of all was his proposal on child benefits:

Switching child benefit to incentivise families to have more children.

Which is hilarious when Reform is so opposed to lifting the two-child cap. Though not if you ask the two Reform MPs who accidentally voted for it.

Reform putting women in danger

But then came his plan to not only push reproduction but to punish those who don't have children:

 Introducing a 'negative child benefit' tax for those who don't have offspring

More worryingly, is that Reform agrees with him. A Reform spokesperson told the Huffington Post:

This is an idea that was first suggested by the respected demographer Paul Moreland as part of a range of measures that should be debated and discussed across developed nations if we are serious about dealing with our looming demography crisis.

He continued:

The Labour government has got its head in the sand when it comes to thinking about the long-term challenges facing Britain. We need a grown up, mature debate about how we can encourage people to have more children and support British families.

Of course, Goodwin as short-sighted as ever. Many could potentially be pressured into having kids and trapped in abusive relationships. It would mean that women are seen as only baby machines and not free to have their own lives or careers.

Deputy leader of Labour, Lucy Powell, expressed her disgust at this idea in the Independent:

Matthew Goodwin's big idea is so ludicrous, you'd be forgiven for thinking this is something out of The Handmaid's Tale. It would punish millions of women and strip them of their basic dignity to choose.

Infertile women are not good enough

But that's only the ones that physically can have children.

I can't imagine the pain that this would cause to those who are struggling with fertility. On top of the emotional and physical toll this puts on you will be financial pressures. For those of us who are infertile, it sends one message. You are not good enough and deserve to be punished for failing as a woman.

I had an elective hysterectomy in 2017 after over a decade of pain. I chose my own health over a condition that was making me want to die, for the sake of one day having a baby. Many would call my decision selfish, but I frankly don't give a fuck what people who would rather I were in pain think of me.

As much as I loathe a Handmaid's Tale comparison, this is very apt here. In the novel, working-class women who are infertile are cast out of society. As they have no purpose in a society that values families over all else.

Reform hates women, but we already know this

Goodwin's comments are abhorrently cruel and show just how much society hates people who don't have children. But Reform supporting it is a sign of just how much Christian pro-life values are not so quietly creeping into the UK.

By seeing us as just baby machines, we are telling anyone who can't have a baby, or chooses not to, that they do not belong in society. But Reform is also telling voters plainly that they don't actually give a fuck about women. Plainly put Reform will be dangerous for women, and they're already proudly telling us that.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

Bad Bunny just shook the US with his Super Bowl halftime show. And perhaps the most beautiful moment was when fellow Puerto Rican superstar Ricky Martin sang about US colonialism in Hawaii and Puerto Rico. This was especially poignant because of escalating US terror against Cuba right now.

Bad Bunny, Ricky Martin, and US colonialism

Puerto Rico is a US territory that has been denied full democratic rights. And Bad Bunny speaks to the island's resistance during many years of financial crisis. His song Lo que le pasó a Hawaii ('What happened to Hawaii') expresses a desire that the US doesn't do to Puerto Rico what it has done to Hawaii.

Ricky Martin, who has previously joined Bad Bunny and others on the island in progressive political mobilisations, sang Lo que le pasó a Hawaii at the 2026 Super Bowl. The song says:

They want to take my river and my beach too
They want my neighborhood and grandma to leave
No, don't let go of the flag nor forget the lelolai
'Cause I don't want them to do to you what happened to Hawaii

RICKY MARTIN IN THE HOUSE

Another day, another media shill doing the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) job of turning the public against PIP claimants for them. Most annoyingly, this time it's a physically disabled person who is throwing people with mental health conditions under the bus. But then it is Julie Burchill.

DWP don't need a hand denigrating mental health

Burchill is, by her own definition. a 'Rad-fem, Christian Zionist', she's best known for her abhorrent views on immigration and transphobia. So it figures that she's also horribly lateral ableist too. In a column in the i Paper Burchill wrote:

If you're too anxious to work but go on holiday, you shouldn't get PIP.

Siiiigh, same old bullshit. It doesn't need pointing out (again!) that personal independence payments (PIP) isn't an out-of-work benefit. The article actually barely mentions claimants going on holiday; it's a throwaway comment. But that didn't stop the editor from making it the most clickbait possible headline.

Thankfully, Burchill does correct herself on the employment fact in the piece, but she also adds:

Of course, you can work and still receive PIP - as I do - but I do think too many people are getting it when they could be supporting themselves.

Such as, for instance, a columnist who brags about squandering their wealth.

Punching down again

Burchill is of course, talking about people who she, and vast parts of the media, think don't actually deserve PIP from the DWP - people with mental health conditions. This is just the latest in a long line of the government trying to de-legitimise people with mental health conditions, whilst planning to make it harder for those same people to claim PIP.

Burchill rightly points out how hard it is to get PIP, even if you have a very physically obvious disability. In her case, she's a wheelchair user and can't walk. She said it took her six months to be approved for PIP, however she also took the chance to shit on other disabled people:

I can't help thinking that had I claimed the mental equivalent of a "bad back" - anxiety perhaps - I would have been awarded it a lot earlier

There's more joys in life than work

Burchill's 'article' is mostly a bizarre rant about how, if she's worked nearly every day since becoming a wheelchair user, what's stopping everyone else? Dunno babe, probably less understanding bosses and less flexibility because they're not rich. Calling herself a 'grafter' not a 'grifter', she says:

I can't think of anything worse for anyone's mental health than not having a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

It's really fucking sad that work is the only reason to get out of bed in the morning for many. My dog is my reason for getting out of bed. For some it's simple joys like a good cup of coffee, their fave tv show to catch up on, or seeing friends. I love my job, but I'm also not some capitalist drone whose only joy is work.

The thing about the old 'work is good for your mental health' argument, though, is that it usually comes from people who are supported in their work. It doesn't take into account just how soul-destroying and detrimental to your mental health an awful job with a horrible boss, can be.

Playing into the government's hands

Instead of sympathising with this point, Burchill essentially implies that disabled people should be happy with any old menial job, whether or not it's suited to their needs. Which, of course, fits the DWP's narrative perfectly and helps them push disabled people into work

There's also the point that apparently needs hammering home that PIP has fuck all to do with whether you can work or not. Because, despite stating this, she still spends the majority of the piece conflating anxiety with workshyness. Which, again, is something the government has done consistently.

Hilariously though, Burchill also thinks the government are on disabled people's side here. She calls them 'the chief sponsor of idleness'. It's always those who think they're sticking it to the establishment who are playing right into their hands.

The government and media are doing enough, we don't need one of our own doing it too

At a time when the media and government are doing everything in their power to turn the public against people with mental health conditions, we don't need one of our own on their side too. Though it's made pretty clear that Burchill is one of those disabled people who thinks she will be spared from the hatred because she works hard and doesn't complain:

During my year in a wheelchair, I've had to deal with all of these, alongside other emotions as varied as fear and fury; if I and other severely physically disabled people can learn to process these feelings, why can't those with anxiety do the same

Let me tell you now, Julie, the hate mob doesn't give a fuck if you're on their side or not. They'll come for us all in the end and won't be happy until all disabled people are left to rot.

Deliberate choice to turn people against benefit claimants, again

Burchill's piece was published alongside two others. The first by Carrie Grant who shares her own experience as a parent carer on how the SEND system failures feed into more people needing PIP. The second is by a former PIP assessor who points out how life-changing PIP can be for all claimants.

This could've and should've been an impactful and important series. However the i Paper couldn't help themselves and had to ensure they included a hefty dose of the scrounger narrative too. There are so many campaigners who also claim PIP that they could've asked to write this.

This was a deliberate choice to de-legitimise mental health claimants. 'Look, even REAL disabled people know they're faking!" The fact that it's a disabled person attacking other disabled people - and doing the DWP's job for them - shows just how insidious the media narrative really is.

Featured image via the Canary

By Rachel Charlton-Dailey

A Saudi official has attacked 'foreign actors' for fueling the war in Sudan. Their comment came after a Rapid Support Forces (RSF) drone killed 24 in Kordofan province. Fighting has displaced millions and killed up to 150,00 people.

The war is now in its third year. And the UK and others have played their part in letting the carnage run on.

The Sudan Doctors Network said RSF targeted:

a vehicle transporting displaced people fleeing South Kordofan State. The vehicle was traveling from the Dubeiker area in North Kordofan when it was attacked near Al-Rahad city.

Two infants died in the attack:

The attack resulted in the deaths of 24 people, including 8 children—two of whom were infants—and several women.

Sudan Doctors Network: 24 Killed, Including 8 Women and Children, in Rapid Support Forces Attack on Vehicle Transporting Them from the Dubeiker Area to Al-Rahad in North Kordofan

The Rapid Support Forces carried out another massacre in North Kordofan State by targeting a vehicle… pic.twitter.com/jDmZxJaZnr

— Sudan Doctors Network - شبكة أطباء السودان (@SDN154) February 7, 2026

The Sudanese foreign ministry said on 8 February:

This attack does not represent an isolated incident, but rather a continuation of a pattern adopted by the militia to obstruct humanitarian work and use deprivation of food as a means of pressure against civilians.

RSF are an Arab supremacist militia given to carrying out massacres of the indigenous population of Sudan. They have also been used by the UAE as mercenaries in Yemen. Despite the UAE's denials, Emirati military support is substantial, traceable, and decisive.

RSF and UAE

The Saudi foreign ministry also commented, thought it did not name the offenders. They said:

The Kingdom affirms that these acts are unjustifiable under any circumstances and constitute flagrant violations of all humanitarian norms and relevant international agreements.

In a clear swipe at RSF's main backer, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), they added:

foreign interference and the continued actions of certain parties in supplying illicit weapons, mercenaries, and foreign fighters—despite their stated support for a political solution.

They said this foreign influence:

constitutes a primary factor in prolonging the conflict and exacerbating the suffering of the Sudanese people.

This is the latest development in the two oil-rich, Western allied Gulf states' failing relationship.

UAE/Saudi confrontation

The UAE and Saudi relations are are uneasy, to say the least. The two are traditionally allies - and recipients of US and other Western support - but their falling out is being felt throughout the Gulf and the Horn of Africa.

As the Times of India has it:

For more than a decade, Riyadh and Abu Dhabi appeared virtually inseparable. They crushed Islamist movements, dictated oil markets, blockaded Qatar and presented themselves as the ultimate power brokers in the Arabian Peninsula. The two kingdoms were often described as strategic siblings, bound by shared vision, capital and a mutual obsession with stability on their terms.

But that alliance has ruptured. Yemen is one point of contention:

Riyadh seeks a unified Yemen under its influence: manageable, stable and friendly to Saudi security interests. Abu Dhabi, however, is pursuing a different vision through its backing of the Southern Transitional Council.

But that disagreement has also played out in Sudan - with deadly consequences.

Proxy war in Sudan

The Sudan war "amplified the stakes" offering:

both Gulf states an opportunity to project influence in Africa.

For the UAE:

Sudan's Rapid Support Forces, controlling gold mines, smuggling routes and borderlands, became a direct conduit to resources. Gold, logistics and influence could be secured without the bureaucracy of formal state structures.

The Canary discussed the role of Sudan's gold mines here. The Saudi regime "backed the Sudanese Armed Forces":

not out of friendship, but fear. Saudi Arabia recognised that paramilitary backed fragmentation could set a dangerous precedent, threatening its own southern flank and regional ambition

Three years in, the war in Sudan has undoubtedly been exacerbated by Gulf interference. But other regional and global powers bear responsibility too.

Israel and Britain

Israel has backed both RSF and the Sudanese government at different times. Turkey, Egypt, and Russia have a role too. And British-sourced equipment has been seen in RSF hands, presumably a result of UK arms sales to UAE.

On October 2025, Labour foreign office minister Stephen Doughty admitted:

We are aware of reports of a small number of U.K.-made items having been found in Sudan, but there is no evidence in the recent reporting of U.K. weapons or ammunition being used in Sudan.

However he resisted calls for an embargo on UAE and said the UK would use its UN security council role:

to call for an immediate end to this violence [and] ensure that international humanitarian law is respected and upheld.

This mealy-mouthed response is typical. Not least because Campaign against the Arms Trade (CAAT) have reported:

The third largest recipient of arms export licences was the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with £172m of military equipment.

CAAT added:

Of particular concern is the £1,966,582 of exports in the military vehicles and components category, given that UK-made engines have been found in armoured personnel carriers used by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in its genocide in Sudan.

The British Labour government is deeply implicated in the killing in Sudan. And it is aligned with both sides in the Saudi/UAE proxy war. The British will likely continue to prevaricate while people die. But as long as UK arms firm CEOs and shareholders get their new yacht or third home, that seems to be fine by Keir Starmer's Labour.

Featured image via the Canary

By Joe Glenton