We are the rooster that sings with it's feet deep in shite. It's gonna get ugly when it hits the fan.

1- Don't you think this is quite political? Like what is your benefit from saying this out of context? If signing this paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it was a bad thing? (I'm not even saying that's the case I'm just saying you don't seem to take that possibility into account at all)

2- From my observations French people -constently- complain about this. So I wouldn't say they didn't care about it. You're doing it right now.

We’re discussing politics.

> Like what is your benefit from saying this out of context?

What does that even mean? Are you insinuating they’re being paid to say that? How do we know you’re not paid to counter them?

> If signing this paper and being stricter helped the hospitals not being saturated and saved x thousands lives do you still think it was a bad thing?

The problem is you and no one else could prove now or then that giving up my human rights would save lives. Because its all pointless lip service to take power away from the people under the guise of “protection”. Just like with encryption, personal weapons, and everything else that governments don’t want us to have.

> I'm just saying you don't seem to take that possibility into account at all

And I’m saying you haven’t taken into account that you’re an Authoritarian apologist.

If banning encryption and helping police stop terrorism saved x thousand lives do you blah blah blah blah

Do programmers hang out here? The aversion to reasoning from first principle is palpable.

If patriot act helped US intelligence agencies prevent the next 9/11, do you still think it was a bad thing?

No matter who was in charge of France there was going to be a giant spike in debt during at the very least covid, and now dealing with this Ukraine mess.

[0] I greatly prefer net Debt-to-GDP, which is a closer approximation to a country's actual balance sheet, as a measure, but it isn't frequently reported and most people tend not to care.

I'm convinced that whatever president they elect, they'll complain just as much.

I am French too and this sounds greatly exaggerated. Either you don't really know about the situation in Hungary or you have a very twisted view of what's happening in France (maybe induced by the medias). You should take a step back.

"Security" laws extending the powers of the police and creating new ways to criminalize protest have been passed at a constant rhythm over the years since Sarkozy's time. After the state of urgency of 2015, part of the dispositions where simply put into law permanently.

Police has been increasingly violent during protests, bringing back old forbidden tactics and squads formerly dissolved for their violence (voltigeurs).

While there has been no dissolution of leftist movement and no political violence from the left since "action directe" in the 80's, there have been multiple ones (or attempts) in recent times, like the one from yesterday of an ecological movement.

Anti-terrorist laws are used to detain ecologists or protesters indefinitely, like in the case of the "8th november" affair from this topic, which has seen a person kept in solitary (hence, tortured) for 16 months without even being convicted.

I think you're sugarcoating the statement. Any type of authoritarianism is bad, would you mind elaborating why AfD would be worse than what Orban or Duda or even Erdogan are doing to their countries?

2/3rds of AfD supporters claim to be doing it as a protest vote. And that they don't support the AfD. Just like with brexit.

There's still time for an alternative before all of Europe goes in with fascism again.

That is somewhat funny/punny, since that is (as you're probably aware) literally in AfD's name: Alternative for Germany (Deutschland).

You don't vote for proto fascists as a protest vote. Especially not when you're German.

There is a large undercurrent of reactionary hateful views in German politics that usually hides behind the fig leaf of "conservatism" but has become more visible thanks to parties like CSU openly copying AfD talking points and "liberal" media being unequipped to handle them in any other way than giving them a platform and hoping that the "marketplace of ideas" saves the day. Of course as we now know from experience, "rational debate" is impotent in a "post-truth" environment.

It's a widespread misconception that Germany got rid of all the Nazis and Nazi ideology during the so-called "Denazification" (Entnazifizierung).

While there were formal reviews of the innumerable former NSDAP members to determine their ideology and behavior under Nazi rule, only the most blatant offenders faced any consequences and it was demonstrably easy to "cheat" (i.e. we now know based on a better understanding of historical records that some people were able to hide very incriminating evidence of their involvement in e.g. forced labor and Jewish persecution) and any undesirable rulings could be appealed to offer another opportunity to "correct the record" so to say. As a consequence, many Nazis saw no real consequences and even ended up in the same positions of power because their job experience made them the most qualified (and "innocent until proven guilty", right?).

Additionally, many former NSDAP members went on to continue working in politics. Of the parties still relevant today, the conservative CDU/CSU received the lions share of them, in addition to those formerly associated with the likewise Christian "center party" which while ostensibly "politically moderate" was one of the driving forces in the rise of the NSDAP and the passing of the Enabling Act dissolving the democracy.

In East Germany, likewise many former NSDAP members ended up in the equivalent of the CDU/CSU (known as CDU in East Germany at the time and CDUD or Ost-CDU in West Germany), the NDPD and the LDPD (the East Germany equivalents of the market liberal West German FDP, the NDPD explicitly being created to target "unimpacted" ex-NSDAP members and siphon off conservative voters who would otherwise have supported the CDU or LPDP), all of which continued to exist as an executive organ[1] of the ruling unity party until 1989.

It's also worth pointing out the East Germany was even less rigurous in its "Denazification" (Stalin ended the program in 1948 insisting that it was time to stop distinguishing between ex-NSDAP and non-NSDAP and instead focus on growing democracy) and the SED was uniquely ill-equipped to deal with neo-Nazis when they arose, previously already having viewed "unimpacted" NSDAP members as politically confused rather than genuinely dangerous. For some it was literally impossible to imagine neo-Nazis could exist in East Germany because they saw the rise of the Nazis as a response to capitalism and East Germany was supposed to be non-capitalist[2]. For this reason, East Germany was however (like the USSR) quite successful at fighting other leftist currents, which were seen as misguided or even "capitalist" (as the only valid form of anti-capitalism was clearly that practiced by the government and opposing it therefore must be capitalist).

So in essence Germany has never weaned itself off fascism, really. While Germany has become generally more progressive compared to the 1930s, in some ways it is also still less progressive than it was during the Weimar era. A lot of leftist politics also died even before the suppression under the Nazis, the suppression under the SED or the suppression under the Cold War era anti-communist West Germany: while many know about the in-fighting between the SPD and the USPD after WW1, culminating in a massacre at the hands of monarchist paramilitaries, there were also numerous other leftist mass deaths such as the two(!) socialist republics in Bavaria, which eventually also fell victim to the monarchists.

In other words, it shouldn't be surprising that we still have monarchist terrorist groups (Reichsbürger) treated with more bewilderment than horror, whereas the closest we have to leftist activism is moderates gluing themselves to public roads to demand incremental climate protection legislation, and two so-called leftist parties that hate each others guts and one of which has almost fully embraced neoliberalism (the SPD implemented the neoliberal reforms of weakening labor protections, social welfare and medical care some 20 years ago).

The AfD is a protest vote in as much as Trump is a protest vote. They're not something you usually bring up in polite conversation but they have easy answers and push all the right (wing) faux-populist buttons.

[1]: Point of pedantry: East Germany quickly established a system with a single ruling party, the SED or "socialist unity party". However the CDU, NDPD and LDPD continued to exist as "block parties" and began increasingly aligning themselves with the ruling SED. The "block parties" were infamously nepotistic and provided a relatively easy path to political power and privileges compared to the dominant SED.

[2]: Point of pedantry: East Germany was not "communist" although it was at times framed as "Stalinist". East Germany instead eventually used the label "real existing socialism" (along with some other Eastern block countries) which was intended to frame anyone left of the ruling party as "utopian" and unserious. This "it's already as good as it gets" position is distinct from other so-called "communist" countries which often used the term aspirationally, claiming they would eventually achieve the communist ideal after reaching a tipping point (allowing the state to "wither away"). Both are distinct from anarcho-communists who would argue that if you try to build a state to achieve communism, "real existing socialism" really is the best you can hope for because states don't wither away voluntarily and you can only grow communism from the ground up (cf. prefigurativism).

> There's still time for an alternative before all of Europe goes in with fascism again.

AfD => fascism. Argumentum ad Hitlerum basically. Does Germany really need more migration? More identity kamikaze? More publicly financed propaganda (ARD, ZDF, DW, plenty "N"GOs)? More provocation towards Russia for no god damn reason? More climate hysteria (and the unevitable destruction of enviroment for it)?

Which party would you choose instead? They all stand for the same thing with different velocity except ... yeah, exactly.

I think arguing about the accuracy of labels like "nazi" or "fascist" is a bit beside the point. You and I both know the people calling the AfD fascist or nazi won't suddenly like it better if you can convince them they don't meet the exact definition of fascism or are identical to the historical National Socialist Democratic Workers Party. It's clearly more about a vibe, but that is also true for the AfD's own political ideology (and yours, apparently, if you think "identity kamikaze" is 1) a thing that is happening and 2) something to be seriously concerned about). Incidentally the NSDAP also had different factions including Strasserites, who imagined a more proletarian-led economy and people who thought having homosexuals like Röhm around was acceptable, at least for utilitarian purposes. Incidentally, most of those were murdered by the rest once the NSDAP actually got into power. Such is the reward for being progressive in the far-right.

Also, while I don't like the people in the AfD, they are still mostly the former right wing of the CDU/CSU, which is not comparable to Orban. CDU/CSU can blame itself for mismanagement.

France has been for the past sixty years and remains an extremely technocratic country. Counter-powers are still everywhere in the administration. The judiciary system is fully independent and works well. The balance between the parliament and the executive is extremely in favour of the president (which is still elected every five years during free elections) but counter-powers exist. They can’t be used by the opposition because despite spending all their time crying wolf and explaining this is the end of the world, they remain a minority and have nothing to propose anyway.

The issue in France remains the same it has always been. The population is old, largely apathetic and would much rather be on the dole than produce anything of value. Meanwhile the unions are extremely unrepresentative of the population as a whole and remain stuck in the Trotskyist heydays of the past.

There's enough food and energy if we so choose but no; artificial crisis from coughs to barbarian hordes on the horizon mean you must be poorer and work harder.

We could all just actually wake up and realise they are lying they are always lying. They dare not tell the truth for you'd realise how much they lie when truth would shine so bright.

I have yet to met a protester who can explain to me how burning cars and picketing is going to magically move down the median age of the population which is slowly but surely drifting towards 50. Considering most French also don’t want to rely on immigration (not that the country is attractive anyway), I guess they are either planning to force people to make kids at gunpoint or are strongly in denial.

Don’t hesitate to explain who is this mysterious "they" who are apparently responsible of everything wrong in the country.

I've existed here long enough to see those that claw themselves to the top, and they are nearly all without fail a combination of psychopaths and narcissists and they will conspire to increase their power and self obsession. I'm very sure you've bumped into them at some point in your life.

The problem is that most of the people are weak and passive and they can not compete against this "they", the majority don't have the will to do it individually and our collective will is either captured by the "they" or kept divided.

I somehow hope this time it can end less violently, but with how much (a lot of french) people hate macron, you never know...

The larger problem is, that it is spreading to other countries and EU itself (just think of how many times EU tried to stop/backdoor/outlaw encryption). Add a new upcoming crisis, recession in germany and the long-term problems brought with eu expansion, and things are about to get even worse.

https://youtu.be/5Sf6hdnSqS4

I can't claim to be an expert in French politics, but harmful government should not be allowed to be stable.

The other bunch happened because they were precariously unstable governments.

he increased the pension age because people are getting older and the state will not be able to afford it? wow what a crazy dictator

Are you just repeating a common cliche while not knowing much about the situation?

So yes, unilaterally deciding to raise the retirement age, which doesn't actually fix anything, without having a vote, without listening to the protests, is neither mild nor democratic.

And thats without mentionning the use of abuse of administration prohibitions towards anti-racist associations and environmental groups.

unless we are talking about handling a national crisis, or avoiding a US-style shutdown, then avoiding a vote may be legitimate under specific circumstances.

but I doubt pension reforms fall under national emergencies

> [...] l’utilisation de messageries chiffrées grand public, sont instrumentalisées comme autant de « preuves » d’une soi-disant « clandestinité » qui ne peut s’expliquer que par l’existence d’un projet terroriste.

Sure, using encryption must mean I have terroistic ambitions... they say public officials lack creativity, but... but at least the government got convicted for their attempts at prosecution. Means the justice system is still functioning.

I used to laugh at the absurdities of the Trump government thinking it would never happen here and alas, it did. And it was even worse than most could have ever imagined.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't like the previous government and already dislike the current one's direction, but when you take one person that truly doesn't give a f**, they can ruin a country in ways you didn't even know existed.

But I don't really see a way out though. Most politicians here (probably everywhere if we're honest) are corrupt so you always choose between the lesser of many evils. The obvious solution is to actually use our collective power to rebel and really enact change - something ironically we say the French are good at - but it simply never happens. Looking at the French protests against the rise of retirement age gave me hope. But then you look at the outcome and it's always the same: we lose.

I honestly think the system has won. Capitalism successfully made everyone (myself included) just comfortable enough to not really take action. We are the proverbial frogs in boiling water and slowly but surely normalizing this insane world we live in today giving away all our hard-fought rights to our capitalist overlords.

We get upset and yell at the void, Twitter, HN, blog posts and don't actually DO anything. I truly hate myself for that. Meanwhile those that actually do something, have their efforts stifled away by governments with ease.

Perhaps I am a bit too pessimistic about this, but from where I stand, there's no way out.

I know how you feel!

I'm from the UK. Corbyn's Labour seemed to me to be a glimmer of hope; but he was pushed out by the MSM and a cabal of his own party's rightist officials, and replaced by a man who immediately on getting the leadership, repudiated all his manifesto promises.

So I no longer have anyone to vote for, and I favour revolution.

I know that that particular reply of mine doesn't help your particular case, but it was sickening to see how much of the supposed French people's liberties and citizens rights were broken back then and how most of the French intelligentsia was just cheering the government from the side.

If you want to call "authoritarianism" the basic rule of law (as in: do not block traffic, do not prevent shops from opening, do not prevent public offices from offering their services...) you are welcome.

By the way, a pet peeve of mine, having always voted for the centre-left, I never appreciated how authoritarianism is generally considered an expression of the extreme right, while history shows that dictatorship was the evil of both extremes.

> You don't seem to care about people their freedom

I do care about the freedom of all people, and that is why I detest when protesters use violence (which is wrong) in order to gather attention for their point (which may be right).

> minority who have the balls to standup against a small elite who have all power.

I respect your opinion, even if I don't share it.

Here we have "fiery but peaceful protests" but in France it is a fundamental breakdown of the rule of law?

I don't agree. France is as wonderful as it is because revolution was successfully completed long ago.

The case reported in this article started when French people who went to fight in Syria among Kurdish militants came back to France and were put under surveillance.

Even if the prosecution is using unconvincing evidence, which I don't know, this is hardly a sign of impending doom.

Nothing personal, I'm talking about the interests of all the voters who freely elected the current president and parliament.

If you are not happy, it's our duty as a society to provide you a way to express your point. But the right to express your point does not involve the violence to get our attention. Most people just want to go on with their daily life, and putting obstacles to them will not gather any sympathy around you.

Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the Gilets Jaunes, the way this government use the police on the protest can be questioning for a democracy. Even the journalist of the right Figaro newspaper protested several times against police brutality against journalists.

Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the recent strikes (supported by 100% of the democratically elected trade unions), the fact that the government twisted the constitution to avoid a democratic vote of the democratically elected parliament on the legislative text is "puzzling"

Those in favour went from 70 to 50% over the course of 5 months, opposition tripled, strong support went from 50% to 20%.

And while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action anymore, people still strongly supported and support the main ideas they pushed, like Citizens' initiative referendum, or the Solidarity tax on wealth

Imagine how successful they could have been if they had behaved as civilised people from the beginning! I personally like some of those ideas, but I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable.

1. We had a convention citoyenne pour le climat. Macron then mostly ignored it.

2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them.

3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands.

If you disqualify protests as a valid form of democratic expression, you also disqualify our famous revolution, the feminist protests that earned women the right to vote, the union strikes that earned us many worker rights, etc.

> I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable

Ah, that explains it. You only see violence in protesters who break windows, not in governments who enact laws on their people. Am I correct in assuming that you're ok with making people work 20 hours/week for the RSA as well?

The reality is: talking about CO2 emissions is talking about economy. That is the main job of the government.

> 2. We have elected representatives who can vote on the laws for us. Macron then used article 49.3 to mostly ignore them.

Macron did not ignore them. 49.3 means: "I'm ready to go on this point; are you ready, too?". And, by the way, you do remember that Macron was elected, too, do you?

> 3. Vote? For which candidate? None of them would cover all of the GJs' demands.

So what? This is democracy! If you can't, or don't want to, found your political movement, then you have to choose among the available candidates. Do you think Macron's program matched exactly my desires?

The revolution, the feminism and the union strikes were expressions of people who were oppressed and on the receiving side of violence. Gilets Jaunes was none of this.

- peaceful protest or "convention citoyenne" are not and should not be efficient

- We don't care what the vast majority of people want, and we don't care about the parliament.

- The only thing we should care is what think the President. The one who got the support of barely 20% of the French population on the first round, and them got elected on the second round because people voted against the far right... In a "presidential Monarchy"

What a nice conception of "democracy"

A government trying to manage a country has a ton of compromises to make every day; I do not expect to be happy with every one of their choices, but I think the current government is doing OK.

On the other side, I fail to see how breaking a window can solve the problem of the protester.

> If you disqualify protests as a valid form of democratic expression

I'm afraid you confuse protest with violence. The ability to protest is fundamental for a democracy to stay a democracy, but protest must not imply violence and, especially, expressing your point does not make it automatically right.

When even journalists from le Figaro (right wing newspaper) have to protest brutality against journalists.... the violence is only coming from the protester ?

In France the only way firefighter got heard the last few times, after month of peaceful protestation, is by doing violent protest, including throwing heavy thing on the policeman. Then the government accepted to negociate with them. If you don't use violence in France, in many case you don't get heard at all.

Gilets Jaunes, aslo because of their violence did manage to get the government to made some concession.

Millions of French people (more than Gilets Jaunes at their peak) marched several times peacefully against the recent Pension Law, supported by all the trade union democratically elected, supported by more than 70% of the population and more than 90% of the workers. Nothing happen. No concession. Not even a vote in the parliament.

For sure sometimes violence is efficient, sometimes violence in counter-productive. Justifiable ? that is something else...

The only polls that matter are elections. Apart from elections, people have the right to avoid any poll without risking any policy change.

And to be clear, I'm not saying pure polling driven policy is the solution, but saying politician should outright ignore them because not legally binding is a very weird stance.

2) Democracy is not just voting every 5 year for a president and a parliament

What can anyone do about a president that abuses its power ? This is a basic democratic issue and I am pessimistic because a lot of people like you just don't seem to get it, so we won't address that and when it is going to be too late it will be too late.

You might like or trust the current government but what about the next one ?

France is big enough. Having to avoid a few square kilometres around the president will leave you plenty of space to organize your protest.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

And that's why the public space must be made available for protesters, it's part of the life of a sane democracy. Public space and free press are sufficient if you have a point that matters to other people.

But if you feel the need to hijack another event in order to get people's attention, maybe you don't have a valid point to start with?

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

If you care about democracy, you have much more relevant menace in France. People are screaming about Macron for some reason. Because they were told he is a DiCtAtOr!! Because he didn’t fold to unions. Apparently unions are to be obeyed otherwise you are a dictator? While obeying to elected government is dictatorship? It’s a nice inversion.

The true authoritarian menace in France comes from the far right and far left. Melenchon is in love with authoritarian leaders (see bolivarian alliance), he can’t help screaming at people that disagree with him. His political career should have been ended by just a few of his outbursts. But he gets a pass for some reason. And don’t get me started on the far right, screaming that we are in a dictatorship while admiring Putin…

Of course you can criticize Macron, he’s far from perfect, but if you care about democracy, focusing on him being THE issue is outright ridiculous. We have far more serious threats. You are completely missing the big picture. And people being told to fight Macron instead of the extremes is a serious threat. I can’t believe I have to explain that.

French 5th republic is sometimes nicknamed "presidential monarchy"... Electing the parliament quite at the same time as the president did reinforced the power of the president. The rise of the far right basically made that the one in the best position against far right at the first round of presidential election (with less than 20% of French people voting for him) be sure of being a Presidential Monarch for 5 years. (Notes that the leftist like Melanchon support a new constitution with more democracy, more counter power, less power for the president...)

Note also that in France people working do democratically vote for unions (even if you are not unionized), and quite 100% of those votes went to union that are strongly against las Pension Law. According to polls more than 90% of the workers were against this law. And Macron could not pass this law in the elected parliament, and had to twist the constitution to pass it... This can be seen as problematic for many.

When it come to protest, a lot of NGO and international bodies criticized the way France handle it. Many people are afraid to prostest in France now. Even the journalist of the righ wing newspaper le Figaro protest several time against police brutality against journalist in protest. NOte that France is the only country in EUrope to use many kind of weapon against protestors, weapon that can kill .

When it comes to journalists. Aside of being target by police during the protest, we've seen also a growing Judicial pressure against them. And now the government is talking about law where they could be spied...

"Because" of terrorism we've seen different law reducing the privacy of people... and many exceptional law that are hijacked to target people who are political opponent but not terrorist (like a police raid without judge OK against peaceful ecologists, or using antiterrorist law to forbid some peacefull protest)

Even the normal law are "twisted" is a problematic way. Like arresting random protesters and keeping them for the night. Or arresting the leader of a group for a fake reason and then searshing his phone flat computer for intel...

FOr sure France is not a dictature, but things are not good and are not going in a good way

I don't care if "quite 100%" of unionized people are in unions that were against the pension law, it doesn't tell anything reliable about their support. They mainly followed what the union told them. Same with polls, I don't care what they say as they are easily oriented, interpreted, ignored or promoted depending on opaque support from influential actors.

If only there was a reliable way for people to express their support and have some influence on who gets to rule... Hmmm, like votes and elections, maybe?Maybe we could call that democracy. We would equip it with super-rules, aka a constitution, that would define "democracy" with actual laws. Using the laws from the constitution isn't "twisting it". The ones doing some twisting are those who provoke massive outrage about something perfectly constitutional. There was a vote ultimately (actually several votes), called motion de censure, and the deputies against the reform couldn't form a majority. And I don't care it was only missing 9 votes, all the rules were followed. If you don't consider the rules should be the decider, then rules are meaningless. Then why bother with a constitution?

It's nice trying to think about how the constitution could define democracy differently that in the current one, but if you think that polls and unions should be part of the definition, it just doesn't make sense. The 5th republic was a response to the political instabilities that plagued France in the wake of the 2nd war, probably not helping France get a consistent stance against Nazi Germany. I don't see why it's attacked today, apart from some opportunistic reasons from actors with questionable and vague alternatives.

You are bundling many weak points together to make up for an actual strong one. "Many people are afraid to protest in France now.". Really? That's somewhat funny because according to unions, millions of people recently protested in France, for weeks. Are you sure you're not confusing with Russia? Protesting in France is not going anywhere, and outside of some twitter disinformation campaigns, people are more afraid of bad and violent actors mixing with the protesters, breaking and burning stuff, provoking police, than the police itself. Of course police is also guilty, their response can be completely inappropriate. But even then, is that because Macron is president? Do you think he personally orders the police to be violent? Why? I don't think he has anything to gain from increased police violence, as it's used against him by his political opponents. Attempts at forming a police brigade specialized against violent actors is possibly counter-productive. But what are you supposed to do when hundreds of people determined to burn something down for whatever political reasons are exercising power from violence and intimidation? And completely free from consequences? Are a few hundreds of radicalized people going to dictate what is allowed in a whole country? I don't know what the response should be, but it can't be giving up or blaming police every time.

Finally, I'm not sure where you heard about pressure against journalists from Macron, spying laws against them, or "terrorist" laws, but I'd be curious to know.

There are different election in France, including professional election, where you basically vote for a union that will represent you while you are not necessarily unionized.

Note that in 1789 our system would not be called a democracy, but a representative system. Note that Russia our Turkey have regular elections and a nice constitution. Of course I am not comparing France with those 2 countries, but it shows that election and a constitution elone are not enough, and that is the only thing you are mentioning.

France is not Russia of course, but I am often afraid in protest(being several time attacked by the police while peacefully demonstrating), and some of my friends did not joined me at some protest because of fear of the police. And we've seen negative change on how police handle protest under our last president (Hollande), but even more under Macron's rules. Germany, birthplace of Black Bloc, use less dangerous weapon and very different technique (based on deescalation).

About pressure against journalists, for sure we are not in Russia ! but there are regular alarming things... Twitter feed from Societe des journalistes or societe des Redacteur of mainstream newspaper can be a good source of information. Here just 3 random bits: https://www.telerama.fr/debats-reportages/l-espionnage-des-j... https://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2023/05/10/m... https://rsf.org/fr/petition-les-citoyens-ont-le-droit-de-man...