Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), the country’s main opposition party, announced a long march to the capital, Islamabad, on Sunday, October 4, as part of its ongoing nationwide movement to demand the release of its leader and former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
The march, which was originally scheduled to be held on Sunday, September 27, starting from Peshawar, was postponed on Friday after the party’s top leadership decided it needed more time to mobilize to face the state’s preparations to block it.
Thousands of people have been taking to the streets in different parts of the country demanding the immediate release of Khan, his wife Bushra Bibi, and other party leaders.
Khan’s party and supporters have also accused the Shehbaz Sharif-led coalition government in the country of deliberately ignoring Khan’s bad health condition and trying to “slowly kill him in prison” by keeping him in solitary confinement.
They have also alleged that Khan has been denied access to his family members and party colleagues in Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail for almost six months now and demanded that he be transferred out of the jail to a private hospital.
State repression
Meanwhile, the security forces have fortified the capital, blocking all the ways leading to the capital with shipping containers and large deployments after the government called the protests illegal and threatened consequences for the PTI leadership.
Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi had earlier called the march a failure and “a drama” and warned that if the PTI does not abandon its plan to go to Islamabad the state will find a “permanent solution” to stop them.
The security forces had arrested a large number of PTI leaders and workers in order to derail the protests. The PTI last week said that even its elected members of the National Assembly were arrested.
Three of Khan’s sisters Aleema, Uzma, and Noreen Khan were also arrested by the Pakistani authorities last week and jailed for 30 days on charges of being an alleged “threat to public order.”
The PTI released a statement on Monday, September 28, claiming Khan’s sisters have not been allowed to meet their family members or lawyers at Kot Lakhpat Jail in Lahore. Calling the situation of their incarceration “alarming” and a violation of their fundamental rights.
The previous mobilization to Islamabad in November 2024 had also witnessed large-scale state repression leading to clashes between the security forces and the PTI workers. Over a dozen people, including four security officials, were killed in those clashes.
Three years of incarceration
Khan, largely considered the most popular political leader in Pakistan’s politics today, was first arrested almost a year after he was ousted from his Prime Minister’s post in May 2023. He led the Pakistan government from August 2018 to April 2022.
The interim government that assumed power after his removal filed over a hundred cases against Khan, accusing him of the misuse of power, corruption, and violence against the security forces during the May 9, 2023 protests.
However, he was released after a court ruled his arrest was illegal only to be arrested again on August 5, this time after a district court sentenced him to three years in prison in the Toshakhana case, related to the state department that stores valuable gifts given to Pakistani officials by foreign dignitaries. Later his wife Bushra Bibi was also arrested.
Though a higher court later overturned his conviction, he and his wife have remained in Adiala Jail facing charges and even convictions in several other cases.
Many leaders in Khan’s party, PTI, were either arrested or forced to denounce the party and politics in public altogether.
Despite the fact that the PTI was blocked from contesting national elections in February 2024, it emerged as the largest opposition group in the country’s National Assembly after it decided to field its candidates as independents.
PTI and Khan’s supporters maintain that the cases against Khan and his wife were politically motivated and fake.
Ammar Ali Jan, leader of the Left wing Haqooq-e-Khalq Party (HKP) and a member of the Tehreek-i-Tahaffuz Ayeen-i-Pakistan (Movement to Save Pakistan’s Constitution or TTAP) formed as a broader alliance to fight for Khan’s release has condemned the continued incarceration of Khan and the repression of movements for his release.
He also questioned the state’s narrative about the failure of the movement, pointing out how it has made every effort to oppress it, including the arrests and fortification of the capital.
It’s rather forgotten today how Washington’s post-9/11 imperial adventurism was not restricted to military intervention. A core component of the Bush administration’s “Freedom Agenda” – under the auspices of which calamitous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere were waged – was overt sponsorship of civil society-led coups throughout the former Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact and Yugoslavia. Citizens of these regions, and the world, live with this meddling’s destructive consequences to this day. The seemingly never-ending – and ever-escalating – Ukraine proxy war is a particularly visceral legacy.
The 1983 creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, a US state entity avowedly concernedwith executing overtly what the CIA once did covertly, ushered in a new era of “spyless coups”. Working in close conjunction with USAID and George Soros’ Open Society Institute, NED ever after provided funding, training and material assistance to NGOs, ‘independent’ media outlets, opposition groups, and other initiatives in service of regime change, across every corner of the world.
Come 9/11, NED and its confederates had devised a supremely cunning, cost-effective template for toppling troublesome governments – be they left-wing, nationalist, or even former US puppets who’d stepped out of line. The previous October, longtime Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic was brought down in what the Washington Postbombastically dubbed “an extraordinary US effort to unseat a foreign head of state, not through covert action of the kind the CIA once employed in such places as Iran and Guatemala, but by modern election campaign techniques.”
At the anti-Milosevic effort’s forefront was Otpor! (Serbian: Resistance!), a rebellious NED-funded youth activist group. Through a mix of civil disobedience, non-violent resistance, rock concerts, street theatre, and graffiti, they fomented mass public opposition to the Yugoslav President. When election day came and official results pointed to Milosevic’s victory, an NED-funded “parallel vote tabulation” purported to expose major fraud, sending millions to the streets of Belgrade to peacefully demand the President’s resignation. Milosevic duly capitulated, in the face of seemingly overwhelming people power.
The supposedly heroic struggle of Otpor! and other US-supported anti-Milosevic groups was immortalised in a slick ‘documentary’, Bringing Down A Dictator. Milosevic’s fall provided a precise blueprint for future ‘color revolutions’ – so-called because frequently, the Empire-supported activists who led these mob putsches prominently adopted specific colours for their banners, branding and logos. Initially, US officials eagerly associated themselves publicly with this upheaval. Meanwhile, the mainstream media routinely published remarkably illuminating post-mortems of the revolts, extensively exposing Washington’s guiding hand and oft-enormous financial outlay.
Nonetheless, politicians, pundits and journalists alike universally framed colour revolutions as ultimately spontaneous uprisings by liberal, progressive elements with legitimate grievances, who yearned for democracy and freedom. In reality, they almost invariably produced corrupt, repressive governments that ruled via intimidation and brutality, including political assassinations. Post-colour revolution regimes also typically conducted sweeping privatisation and other ravaging ‘reforms’, destroying living standards for average citizens by prostrating their countries to the EU, IMF, NATO, World Trade Organization, and other mechanisms of Western economic, military, and political subjugation.
Slobodan Milosevic’s NED-orchestrated ouster is nicknamed the ‘Bulldozer Revolution’, due to iconic scenes during the upheaval of a wheel loader helping anti-government agitators occupy state buildings. However, its driver quickly turned against the “Revolution”. Subsequent “shock therapy” decimated Yugoslavia’s mixed market economy, causing his successful independent business to fail, and him to go bankrupt. He subsisted until his dying day on meagre state welfare payments. For most participants, subsequent colour revolutions were similarly an object lesson in being careful about what one wishes for.
‘External Shove’
In February 2005, President George W. Bush gave a swaggering address in Bratislava, Slovakia. He hailed how “in recent times, we have witnessed landmark events in the history of liberty.” This included Georgia’s November 2003 Rose Revolution, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution the next year, and Iraq’s Purple Revolution a month prior. “The advance of freedom is the concentrated work of generations,” Bush declared. He looked ahead to Moldova, and “inevitably” Belarus, “someday proudly [belonging] to the country of democracies [sic]”:
“Eventually, the call of liberty comes to every mind and every soul. And one day, freedom’s promise will reach every people and every nation.”
Moldova’s forced transformation into a staggeringly corrupt effective EU-US colony took many years. Belarus conversely remains stubbornly resistant to “freedom’s promise”, as defined by Brussels, London, Washington, and other centres of imperial power. Still, President Bush’s confidence was well-founded. Waves of insurrectionary unrest unleashed by his government’s “Freedom Agenda” had systematically swept away designated enemy governments one by one annually since he took office. Indeed, within weeks of Bush’s speech, Kyrgyzstan’s insufficiently pro-Western leader fell victim to yet another colour revolution.
He would not be the last. Prior colour revolutions had enthusiastically emphasised the importance of techniques of nonviolent resistance – many of which were crafted by Gene Sharp, who was intimately enmeshed within the US military and intelligence establishment for much of his life. However, Kyrgyzstan’s NED-created regime change army, KelKel – directly modelled on Otpor! – attacked police, torched government buildings and even carried out bombings. Their ferocity was actively encouraged and promoted by US-funded TV stations locally. Such belligerence subsequently became a colour revolution calling card.
Ukraine’s Orange Revolution
That colour revolutions represented a formal weapon of war in the Empire’s post-9/11 arsenal was enthusiastically spelled out by arch-neoconservative Max Boot in late December 2004. He gushed how Ukraine’s Orange Revolution days earlier, which brought a pro-Western government to power, was “one of the most inspiring events” of that year. Boot declared the “triumph” and “miracle” of the revolution “should dispel the quaint notion still prevalent in many Western universities and foreign ministries that democracy is a luxury good suitable for rich countries”:
“These revolutions reveal the hollowness of the cliché that ‘democracy can’t be imposed by outsiders’… sometimes, when dealing with an entrenched dictatorship, this requires military intervention of the kind that occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. More brittle regimes can be brought down by their own people, but even they often need a little external shove… There was nothing nefarious about the US intervention in Ukraine.”
Boot boasted how Washington had “spent $58 million on democracy promotion in the last two years” in Ukraine. He proposed Kiev receive “expedited NATO and European Union membership,” to finish off the Orange Revolution. “In the meantime, we need to apply elsewhere the lessons of Ukraine” Boot demanded, suggesting “an obvious candidate for a similar transformation is Iran.” He explained, “it’s hard to think of a higher priority than the overthrow of the mullahs,” encouraging the Bush administration to prioritise “liberating Iran.”
‘USAID Help’
Such was the insurrectionary fervour of the time, in January 2006 USAID went to the extent of publishing a glossy magazine, Democracy Rising, revealing in detail Washington’s central role in fomenting “grassroots” rebellions as far afield as Afghanistan, Gaza and Lebanon. Dedicated sections on colour revolutions to date were replete with stunningly forthright passages. A section on Georgia’s November 2003 Rose Revolution described how NED had financed regime change training for local “lawyers, judges, journalists, members of parliament, NGOs, political party leaders, and others.”
The stated purpose of this investment was to give Georgians “a sense that they should regulate the government.” The Rose Revolution “was the climax of these efforts.” One recipient of US financial support remarked, “without foreign assistance, I’m not sure we would have been able to achieve what we did without bloodshed.” Meanwhile, several pages were dedicated to the Orange Revolution. It noted how thousands of Ukrainian journalists were given training in “investigative reporting”, bankrolled by NED and USAID.
An alumni told Democracy Rising this sponsorship “created a feeling that others stood with them ‘in the trenches’.” Concurrently, NED-affiliated Freedom House flooded the coffers of NGOs “that sponsored voter education, mobilized voters to get to the polls and observed elections.” These organisations “also held meetings, youth dances, rock concerts and karaoke to attract young voters,” and “ran public service ads on TV stations, informing people about their right to vote.” Meanwhile, “democracy trainers from Serbia, Slovakia, Russia and Croatia” were flown into the country.
In the second round of Ukraine’s presidential election, NED-financed NGOs claimed to have been inundated with tens of thousands of reports of fraud from voting stations all over the country, while exit polls they produced pointed to widespread rigging having denied pro-Western candidate Viktor Yushchenko a landslide victory. Vast protests, combined with opposition-organised general strikes, widespread civil disobedience and occupations of government buildings forced a rerun. A US-funded think tank apparatchik asserted:
“USAID help for the poll was absolutely important – the poll results after the second round made people go to the street.”
For all the hype and self-assurance of Democracy Rising, its publication came at a time when colour revolutions were increasingly being viewed with hostility and suspicion at a state and public level throughout the Global South. In every case, the radical outcomes promised by colour revolution leaders and advocates failed to materialise, while US rhetoric about the commitment of resultant pro-Western regimes to democracy and freedom was a perverse fraud.
In Ukraine, US-installed Yushchenko implemented economic austerity, slashed regulations and social spending, bailed out criminal banks, broke open state industry and natural resources for foreign plunder, attacked the rights of Russian speakers, and began preparing the country for locally-feared NATO membership. Within just nine months of entering office, his coalition government – comprised of Orange Revolution activists – collapsed due to deeply corrupt battles with feuding Ukrainian oligarchs over control of key media and industrial assets.
Yushchenko was voted out in the January 2010 presidential election, finishing fifth in the first round with just 5.5% of the vote. As Empire house journal Foreign Policy lamented years later, the Bush administration’s much-vaunted colour revolutions all turned out to be “terribly disappointing.” Each and every time, “elite corruption still continued apace” and “promises of far-reaching change never really materialized.” Damningly, “maladies that typified the preceding regimes quickly came to describe” the governments created by colour revolutions themselves.
‘Revolution Business’
That’s quite some euphemism. In Georgia, longtime Soros acolyte Mikheil Saakashvili granted himself unilateral power in key policy areas, before brazenly exploiting his position to harass and jail business and political rivals. Saakashvili’s targets would be raped and/or tortured in prison, their ordeals filmed for primetime broadcast on local TV networks. Grave questions abound over his personal involvement in several suspicious deaths, including government ministers’. He was voted out in October 2012, despite NED’s best efforts.
Kyrgyzstan’s 2005 Tulip Revolution installed Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who proceeded to run the country as his personal fiefdom for five years. Bakiyev’s relatives profited exorbitantly from legally questionable privatisation of state industries. For example, his family signed a highly controversial $1.8 billion deal to supply fuel to a local US military base, close to Kyrgyzstan’s total GDP in 2003. Elsewhere, Bakiyev’s brother oversaw Bishkek’s security apparatus – arbitrary detentions, bogus convictions, torture, and murders of opposition activists, journalists, and politicians became commonplace.
Bakiyev was himself chased out of not only the presidential palace but Bishkek itself in April 2010, following a massacre of anti-corruption protesters in which up to 100 were killed and at least 450 wounded. Thereafter, Kyrgyzstan was plunged into economic and political chaos for a decade, with numerous governments collapsing along the way. The freest and most stable Central Asian state prior to the Tulip Revolution, it is only since 2020 – following another Anglo-American coup – the country has regained some semblance of stability.
A key player in that upheaval was British ambassador Charles Garrett. He arrived in Bishkek from Macedonia, where as this journalist has revealed from April 2016 he steered what was known as the “colorful revolution”. Illegally obtained, deceptively edited wiretaps seemingly implicating government officials in shocking crimes produced huge protests, featuring widespread arson attacks and brutal clashes between demonstrators and police. Garrett distributed cash to NGOs and activists involved in the unrest from his diplomatic pouch, encouraging them to cause mass havoc.
George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, NED, and USAID were also colorful revolution participants. Some protesters even proudly wore “Soros Army” shirts. Despite a huge public counter-revolutionary fightback, the tumult paralysed the Macedonian economy and state, leading to the installation of a doggedly pro-Western, dangerously dysfunctional administration that engaged in industrial scale graft, jailed political opponents on bogus charges, and changed the country’s name despite widespread opposition. Meanwhile, existing economic problems, including crippling brain drain, were gravely exacerbated.
The unfailingly disastrous results of colour revolutions surely contributed to White House officials abruptly and firmly distancing themselves from the entire enterprise, before the Bush administration’s second term was even over. The “Freedom Agenda” was quietly forgotten. The President – who in October 2004 openly mandated financial assistance to Belarusian opposition activists, and once publicly praised the Rose Revolution as an example to be followed throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia – went so far as to deny the US was in the “revolution business” at all.
‘Alternate Reality’
Colour revolutions have continued apace ever since, with the same strategies being recurrently applied the world over, to varying degrees of success. All along, non-Western governments – in particular China, Iran and Russia – have become increasingly vocal in their condemnation of and opposition to colour revolutions, in some cases passing legislation seeking to curtail the operations of foreign funded NGOs on their soil. Yet, the mainstream media long ago adopted a rigid Omertà on Washington’s culpability for civil society-driven destabilisation overseas.
In a striking example of this paradigm shift, in November 2004, before the Orange Revolution was over, The Guardian published a revealing report exposing the “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev.” The outlet stated unambiguously the revolt was “an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in Western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.” NED, the State Department and USAID were all fingered as culprits.
Fast forward to July 2015 however, and a Guardian article on Russia’s banning of NED under foreign agent laws quite amazingly relied on a brief quote pulled from the Endowment’s official website to describe its operations. In the intervening time, the Maidan Revolution overthrew Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, setting Kiev on the warpath with Moscow. Washington’s irrefutable involvement was strenuously denied at the time by the mainstream media, and has been ever since.
Following the Ukraine proxy war’s February 2022 eruption, The New York Times took vigorous aim at independent journalists for spreading the “conspiracy theory” Maidan was US-orchestrated, dubbing the proposition an “alternative reality” and “Russian disinformation”. This is despite every prominent Maidan actor – including the individuals who started the demonstrations – receiving NED or USAID funding, leaders of US-bankrolled organisations in the country advertising their intention to overthrow Yanukovych years prior, and theEndowment spending $20 million in the country in 2013 alone.
After the outbreak of war in Ukraine, NED removed its grant records on Ukraine, listing its investment in a panoply of initiatives in the country over many years – many of which ultimately targeted Russia, one way or another. In mid-2024, the Endowment undertook the unprecedented step of removing grant records for the entire world. Today, brief entries on different geographical regions describe in vague terms the Endowment’s specific aims locally, and overall sums being spent. The crucial questions of where, and on what, aren’t clarified.
NED going underground makes the task of tracking and exposing contemporary colour revolutions difficult, but not impossible. In September 2025, mass rioting ignited in Nepal. Major news outlets without exception reported the fiery agitation as an organic burst of dissent by the country’s disaffected “Gen Z”, motivated by corruption, unemployment, and state censorship of social media. Publications barely acknowledged demonstrators committed serious crimes, including torching Nepal’s parliament and the Prime Minister’s official residence, which sent occupants fleeing in helicopters.
Based on publicly available information, the clear insinuations of a colour revolution could be discerned. An NGO that organised the protests, Hami Nepal, had clear links to organisations known to be in receipt of NED funding. Subsequent leaks amply demonstrated the Endowment and USAID expended substantial sums over the years preceding the coup training young Nepalese citizens how to protest, founding NGOs and political parties, and “advocate concerns” on issues such as corruption. Evidently, the post-9/11 “Freedom Agenda” never actually ended.
Investigamos o que importa para os brasileiros além do que passa na campanha eleitoral. Leia mais reportagens como essa clicando aqui.
Para que regular Inteligência Artificial? Essa fala não saiu da boca de lobistas de corporações de Big Techs dos Estados Unidos, mas de uma parlamentar do Brasil. Enquanto o presidente Donald Trump apoia sem restrições o avanço da IA – que ele passou a chamar de “superinteligência” -, políticos brasileiros têm atuado alinhados às grandes empresas de tecnologia, indo contra regulamentações nacionais que afetam diretamente os seus modelos de negócios.
Um levantamento feito a partir do painel “O meu candidato é da bancada das big techs?”, da organização sem fins lucrativos Ctrl Z, mostra quais candidatos nas eleições de 2026 têm esse tipo de atuação.
A análise foi feita a partir da atuação dos parlamentares em projetos de lei, decretos, requerimentos, emendas e outras tramitações no Congresso que podem afetar o funcionamento e o modelo de negócios das big techs. Entre as matérias analisadas estão o PL 2630/2020, conhecido como PL das Fake News, que tinha como objetivo estabelecer mecanismos de responsabilização das plataformas digitais; o PL 2338/2023, sobre regulação da inteligência artificial; o PL 2628/2022, que deu origem ao Estatuto Digital da Criança e do Adolescente; o PL 896/2023, , que altera a Lei nº 7.716/1989 para incluir crimes praticados em razão de misoginia, incluindo condutas como injúria e incitação ao ódio contra mulheres na internet; o PL 4675/2023, que estabelece novas regras de defesa da concorrência nos mercados digitais; e o REDATA, regime especial de tributação para serviços de data centers.
Além da atuação individual, o levantamento mostra que vários políticos têm atuado em conjunto em projetos que beneficiam ou reduzem a fiscalização sobre as Big Techs. Caroline de Toni, Bia Kicis, Marcel Van Hatten, Kim Kataguiri e Gilson Marques, por exemplo, fazem parte do grupo que apresentou cerca de 13 Projetos de Decreto Legislativo (PDLs) para sustar os decretos nº 12.975 e nº 12.976 relacionados ao Marco Civil da Internet, que estabelece medidas para responsabilizar plataformas e proteger mulheres contra assédio, perseguição, ataques coordenados e divulgação de imagens íntimas sem consentimento, alegando que o governo teria extrapolado seu poder regulamentar.
Já Gilson Marques, Kim Kataguiri, Gustavo Gayer, Bia Kicis votaram contra a Emenda de Plenário nº 68 ao REDATA, que defendia a aplicação de salvaguardas ambientais mais rígidas, como exigências de fontes de energia 100% renováveis para habilitação, e o direcionamento de contrapartidas fiscais para fundos públicos ou programas socioambientais.
A reportagem pediu o posicionamento a todos os políticos citados. O espaço segue aberto para manifestações.
Veja a atuação de cada político abaixo.
Adriana Ventura (NOVO-SP)
Candidata à reeleição para a Câmara, foi vice-presidente da Comissão Especial de Inteligência Artificial da Câmara e integrou duas comitivas de parlamentares que visitaram o Vale do Silício. No retorno da viagem, a política voltou com discurso alinhado ao das empresas de tecnologia em relação à regulação das IAs: “Para que estamos fazendo isso? Por que a gente precisa ter pressa? Países estão discutindo isso dois, três, quatro, cinco anos!”, declarou durante palestra em maio de 2024 sobre a aplicação da IA no setor de saúde, mencionando também que a pressa poderia “matar a inovação”.
Também apresentou a emenda n° 34/2025 ao texto do ECA Digital, propondo mudanças no artigo 11 do projeto em relação às ferramentas de inteligência artificial destinadas a crianças e adolescentes. A proposta estabelecia que esses recursos fossem revisados regularmente em colaboração com especialistas e órgãos competentes e previa a possibilidade de desabilitar funcionalidades consideradas não essenciais ao funcionamento básico dos sistemas. Votou contra a urgência do PL 2630/2020.
Procurada pela Pública, Adriana Ventura afirmou que sua atuação na regulação de plataformas e IA busca conciliar proteção dos cidadãos, liberdade de expressão, segurança jurídica e inovação. Sobre o ECA Digital, disse ter defendido critérios técnicos, segurança e autonomia das famílias. Também defendeu uma regulação proporcional aos riscos, com responsabilidades definidas e sem criar barreiras à inovação ou à concorrência.
Caroline de Toni (PL-SC)
Candidata ao senado pelo PL em Santa Catarina, está na liderança por uma das vagas do estado, de acordo com a última pesquisa da Quaest. Também votou contra a urgência de regulação das plataformas digitais e apresentou requerimento para a criação de uma nova Comissão Especial para analisar o PL 4675, proposta que não foi aprovada.
Na discussão do REDATA, Caroline de Toni apresentou as emendas n° 110 e 111, propondo mudanças que ampliavam a abrangência dos benefícios tributários e flexibilizavam condições para que empresas de data centers tivessem acesso ao regime. A proposta permitia, por exemplo, que empresas do setor anteriormente habilitadas no Regime Especial de Tributação para a Plataforma de Exportação de Serviços de Tecnologia da Informação (REPES) continuassem utilizando as regras anteriores até a aprovação de sua habilitação no REDATA. Também dispensava essas empresas da exigência de apresentar um novo projeto de instalação ou ampliação para aderir ao regime.
Gilson Marques (NOVO-SC)
Candidato à reeleição para a Câmara, gabaritou contra a regulação digital: votou “não” à urgência de regular as plataformas digitais, à regulação da inteligência artificial e ainda ao ECA Digital.
Para a Pública, Gilson Marques afirmou ser contrário ao PL 2.630/2020 comparando regulação de discurso desinformativo nas plataformas à censura: “Falar que Lula é ladrão é fakenews? Então me prendam… Esse é o problema deste projeto. Queria dar poder ao governo definir o que é a verdade, e perseguir quem discorda dele”. Sobre o PL 2.338/2023, defendeu que “não há necessidade de regular um centímetro a mais”.
No ECA Digital, criticou a previsão de remoção de conteúdos que possam causar dano psicológico a adolescentes e questionou os mecanismos de verificação de idade, alegando riscos à privacidade e à liberdade de expressão. Também questionou mudanças no Marco Civil da Internet: “Há no decreto do governo a responsabilização das plataformas se não retirarem “imediatamente” conteúdo de ‘golpe de estado’. Se eu defender fechar o STF, isso é um conteúdo de golpe de estado? E se minha defesa for que todos os tribunais superiores e o STF sejam unificados no STJ, é defesa de golpe de estado?”
Sobre a legislação contra misoginia, afirmou que “o que causa insegurança para as mulheres é falta de punição para criminoso. Montesquieu já dizia: ‘leis inúteis enfraquecem as leis necessárias’. Se for aprovado, o projeto da misoginia colocará o Brasil mais longe de combater seus problemas reais, e aumentará a censura, a perseguição a opositores”.
Por fim, no REDATA, disse defender investimentos e infraestrutura digital, mas criticou a criação de benefícios tributários sem avaliação de custos e resultados e defendeu contrapartidas claras para os incentivos.
Júlia Zanatta (PL-SC)
Candidata à reeleição para a Câmara, votou contra o requerimento de urgência para regular as plataformas digitais e se manifestou contra o PL da misoginia, argumentando que o projeto poderia representar risco à liberdade de expressão e à liberdade religiosa. Também se posicionou contra o PL 4675, que trata de mercados digitais. Como vice-líder do PL na Câmara, apresentou pedidos para retirar o projeto de pauta em diferentes ocasiões, além de requerimentos de votação nominal, em uma articulação de obstrução que também envolveu o então líder do partido, Sóstenes Cavalcante.
Marcel van Hattem (NOVO-RS)
Candidato à reeleição para a Câmara, apresentou cinco emendas de alteração ECA Digital, defendeu a realização de audiência pública sobre denúncias de exploração infantil, mas também apresentou emendas ao PL 2628 que alteravam obrigações das plataformas relacionadas ao gerenciamento de riscos por faixa etária e ao acesso de menores a conteúdos ilegais ou nocivos.
Van Hattem também se posicionou contra o PL 4675 e apresentou requerimento de votação nominal. No caso do REDATA, apresentou duas emendas à MP 1.318/2025, que originalmente criava o regime. Posteriormente, o conteúdo da medida provisória foi incorporado ao PL 278/2026, que deu origem à Lei nº 15.504/2026.
Bia Kicis (PL-DF)
Candidata à reeleição para a Câmara, durante a tramitação do ECA Digital, apresentou emendas ao ECA Digital que alteravam obrigações impostas às plataformas. Também esteve entre as deputadas do PL que apresentaram PDLs contra decretos relacionados ao Marco Civil da Internet e à misoginia online.
Eduardo Girão (NOVO-CE)
Membro do Senado pelo NOVO-CE e candidato à vice-presidência ao lado de Zema (NOVO-MG), também gabaritou contra a regulação digital: não aprovou o texto do PL 2630 no Senado, se posicionou contra a regulação da inteligência artificial e foi um dos quatro votos contrários ao ECA Digital no Senado, confirmados na ata oficial da sessão de 27/08/2025, junto com Carlos Portinho, Luiz Carlos Heinze e Jaime Bagattoli.
Fernando Máximo (PL-RO)
Na liderança da disputa por uma das vagas no senado, Máximo apresentou quatro emendas ao PL 2628: duas delas o Intercept Brasil revelou que foram criadas diretamente por Marconi Borges Machado, gerente de políticas públicas da Meta no Brasil desde 2017. Uma das propostas retirava das plataformas a obrigação de apresentar determinados relatórios de moderação; outra alterava previsões relacionadas a multas e sanções criminais. As duas foram rejeitadas pelo relator. Outra emenda apresentada por Máximo, sem a identificação de Machado nos metadados, contribuiu para a retirada do chamado “dever de cuidado” do texto final. Votou contra a urgência de regulação das plataformas digitais
No caso do REDATA, Máximo apresentou emendas à MP 1.318/2025, que originalmente criou o regime. A medida provisória perdeu eficácia, mas seu conteúdo foi posteriormente incorporado ao PL 278/2026, aprovado pelo Congresso e sancionado como a Lei nº 15.504/2026.
Gustavo Gayer (PL-GO)
Também na disputa pelo senado pelo PL em Goiás, votou contra o requerimento de urgência do PL 2630/2020. Os cinco requerimentos apresentados por ele durante a tramitação da regulação da inteligência artificial, trataram de impactos da regulação sobre a concorrência e envolveram discussões sobre as grandes empresas do setor. Gayer também esteve entre os deputados do PL que apresentaram emendas ao PL 2628 que alteravam obrigações das plataformas.
Durante o debate sobre o ECA Digital, afirmou que “a esquerda está usando a denúncia do Felca como arma ideológica”. Também é autor de PDL que questiona decretos do governo relacionados ao tema.
Kim Kataguiri (MISSÃO-SP)
Candidato à reeleição para a Câmara, votou contra o requerimento de urgência do PL 2630/2020. Sobre o PL 2338/2023, afirmou que uma regulação excessiva poderia frear o avanço do setor, mesmo argumento de Adriana Ventura. Kataguiri também esteve na primeira comitiva da Frente Digital a visitar as big techs no Vale do Silício em 2022, viagem bancada com dinheiro da Câmara. Além disso, criticou publicamente o ECA Digital em seu perfil no X.
Some 2,500 years ago, Babylon trained the sons of its wealthiest families without a single weekly hour devoted to the gods. There was no textbook that worked as a Bible either. Religion was everywhere and in no particular subject, spread through sign lists, writing exercises and arithmetic drills. A study published in the journal Iraq […]
Beryl Gilothwest’s grandmother, Sandy “Moose” West, passed away at age 108 in 2021. For The Bitter Southerner, Gilothwest profiles a diminutive woman whose love for Ossabaw, an island off the coast of Georgia, was larger than life. In a world striving for “progress,” West was a staunch advocate for thoughtful preservation; she was a fierce conservationist and environmentalist who embraced the unknown and took pleasure in learning from it.
“Sandy believed that embracing what we cannot understand is the pathway to enlightenment. In her mind, spending time in the uncharted wilds of Ossabaw is the best way to learn that lesson. Separated from the mainland by a 30-minute boat ride, the island is deeply remote. Cell service is scant, and there is no wi-fi. You have to fend for yourself out there in a way that is uncommon in contemporary culture, where we always seem to have an escape hatch. Sandy knew that welcoming people into that kind of environment, where they have to relinquish control to the island, would force them to reckon with the unknown.”
US Africa Command said in a press release on Monday that its forces launched more airstrikes in Somalia as the Trump administration continues a record-shattering bombing campaign in the country. The command said that the strikes were launched on September 24 and targeted al-Shabaab in the vicinity of Qumbi, a village about 55 miles northwest […]
The EU’s delisting of two Russian oligarchs last week despite multiplying sabotage attacks in Europe was “regrettable”, while German-Russian talks at the UN ended in “ridicule”, EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas has said.
“It is regrettable that this [delisting] was the decision,” said Kallas on Monday (28 September) in Brussels at a defence ministers’ meeting.
“We are putting forward more listings, targeting their military-industrial complex, also targeting the finances of Russia, because we want this war to stop,” she added, referring to the 22nd round of Russia sanctions, due on 12 October.
Lithuania’s defence minister Robertas Kaunas also called the delistings a “step backwards”, adding: “This is not the time to reduce sanctions. We have to strengthen the pressure on Russia and [Russian president Vladimir] Putin’s environs”.
This article continues, but the full version is available only to EUobserver.com subscribers. Visit account.euobserver.com/membership
Twenty-three children make their way to school with their eyes glued to the murky water of the Nare River to see if they can see the hippopotamus. The school route has become a kind of safari with the kids scanning the horizon. Everyone in the municipality has a story to tell about the hippopotamus; that his feces scare away the fish, that he eats the banana crops, that his footprints are the size of three palms, that he will capsize a canoe... The Puerto Nare hippopotamus is all that’s talked about here. For Luis and his brother Diego, he is not a stranger. They call him Selmo. Their mother shakes her head and asks them not to get too attached because the judge has allowed just 60 days for the hippo to be removed from the vicinity.
This story is a part of the weekly newsletter about security, defence, and tech in the eastern flank of Nato, How we cee it.
Over the past few weeks, a new wave of fear has engulfed Europe. A number of intelligence and government officials have spoken out, saying Russia could possibly attack a Nato country within months, not years.
On 18 September, Polish prime minister Donald Tusk warned that Russia is planning hybrid strikes with drones or rockets on European countries that support Ukraine, such as Poland.
Two days later, Czech intelligence chief Michal Koudelka told the Guardian that, as well as increased drone activity, a small-scale invasion of Nato territory bordering Russia could be part of the Kremlin’s plans.
Then, last Thursday, Denmark’s defence intelligence service said that Russia is likely to intensify its hybrid war against the West in the coming months, with more frequent attacks against Nato countries.
On the same day, speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Poland’s foreign minister Radosław Sikorski said, according to TVP World: “We are receiving information … that Russia is preparing something big this year.”
This is not the first time a wave of comments like this has appeared. A similar situation arose last year, when various officials in Europe took turns escalating their rhetoric about the Russian threat.
It is possible that they are speaking out again because new information has surfaced within the intelligence community. The communication goal could be letting Russia know that they know. Much like CIA director John Ratcliffe’s visit to Moscow last month, this could be an effort to make sure Russia doesn’t miscalculate.
The warnings also come in a different context from last year, when the Baltic countries were sounding the alarm. Russia has noticeably been turning up the temperature of its activity around Europe.
Back in July, a cruise missile crashed in Poland. According to experts, it was not a misguided missile, but one deliberately aimed at Poland. Then, in early August, a drone carrying an explosive device was discovered at Leipzig/Halle Airport in eastern Germany, close to Ukrainian cargo planes.
Germany’s interior minister Alexander Dobrindt said the Leipzig airport attack followed the “well-established pattern of Russian hybrid operations in Europe,” the BBC reported.
According to German investigators, who spoke to Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the incident was also connected to other events, such as an attempted arson attack on a drone manufacturer in eastern Slovakia, and an arson attack in Munich on September 3, when several incendiary devices were thrown from a passing car onto a construction site near the headquarters of defence firms Rohde & Schwarz and Helsing.
In fact, there have been so many different incidents recently that the semi-regular drone incursions into Romania and the Baltics have become almost normalised and struggle to make headlines anymore.
Hypothetical scenarios abound
Scenarios of where Russia could take its hybrid attacks next are as abundant as onlookers’ creativity allows. They range from small attacks on factories, through the seizure of a small piece of land by an elite drone unit, all the way to the capture of the Suwałki corridor – a strategic piece of land between the Baltic states and mainland Europe.
Most recently, the CIA warned that while all eyes had so far been on the Baltics, Russia may be preparing a drone strike against Spain, France, and Italy.
According to Marko Mihkelson, chairman of the Estonian parliament’s foreign affairs committee, the snowball of speculation about an imminent Russian attack on Europe is gathering pace.
But as he sees it, isolated facts are being mixed with wishful thinking, worst-case scenarios and, at times, little more than the need to grab attention.
As he wrote in an opinion piece for the Estonian news agency ERR: “Russia understands that it can confuse and paralyse us through information operations alone. Constant speculation about the Baltic states and Poland risks creating the impression that this is primarily a problem for two or three countries on Russia’s doorstep, while the rest of Europe can somehow remain untouched.”
According to Mihkelson, Russia’s campaign against the West would not necessarily begin with a conventional attack.
It could start by undermining Nato from within: interfering in elections, amplifying polarising narratives, exploiting political divisions, and spreading fear. It could seek to isolate Ukraine by limiting Western support, and then test Nato’s willingness to stand together.
As for worries that Russia will attempt to grab land from the Baltics or Poland, there are no significant material or military changes to note along the borders.
Belarus did hold a four-day military exercise near its border with the Suwałki corridor in mid-September, but that is nothing close to the signals we were getting from Russia just before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Back then, physical military infrastructure was being constructed ahead of the attack.
There are also no significant changes in the Russian military’s posture to launch a land attack against the Baltics.
Estonian government officials confirm this. According to Estonia’s minister of defence, Martin Herem, its assessment of the Russian threat remains unchanged.
That means Russia’s main effort remains focused on its war in Ukraine, and neither Estonia, Denmark, nor other Nato allies currently see a threat requiring raised military readiness.
Military experts in Lithuania also see no signs of new escalation. This doesn’t mean Russia won’t continue to be dangerous. It means that Russia has been engaged in provocations against Nato countries for years already, and similar behaviour will continue.
“No one is currently planning to conquer us – not at this moment, nor this year. In this case, specific, very precise attacks or provocations are more likely, designed not so much to cause physical damage as to sow serious panic in people’s minds,” Deividas Šlekys, a professor at Vilnius University’s Institute of Political Science and International Relations, told the Lithuanian wire LRT on Monday (28 September).
And so, while last autumn it was the Baltic states sounding the alarm about a potential Russian attack, now their officials are looking to calm the panic about their aggressive neighbour.
Euronews claims climate change has evolved into a “meta-crisis” threatening food security, energy supplies, economies, water resources, and international security. This is misleading because the article largely substitutes predictions and assertions for measurements of what is actually happening. The data show global crop production and yields reaching record levels, deaths from extreme weather collapsing over the long term, and many of today’s energy and economic problems arising from political choices and geopolitical conflicts rather than changes in climate.
Euronews builds its case primarily around an interview with Emmanuella Doussis, UNESCO Chair on Climate Diplomacy at the University of Athens. Doussis declares climate change an economic, social, political, and geopolitical problem, linking it to competition for resources, migration, water shortages, food insecurity, and the energy transition.
Those are sweeping claims. Curiously, Euronews provides remarkably little observational evidence demonstrating that climate change is actually causing the worldwide “meta-crisis” its headline announces.
Perhaps the most obvious contradiction concerns food.
Doussis predicts, “We will face a very large, serious problem with food security.” But predictions about what might happen cannot erase what is happening.
Climate at a Glance: Crop Production summarizes data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization showing that global crop production and yields have risen dramatically during the period of modern warming. Its latest summary reports that the 2023 and 2024 global crop years produced the two highest global crop yields per acre on record.
Climate Realism has documented the same trend repeatedly. Global production of staple crops has increased substantially, and yields have repeatedly set records during recent decades. Even where individual crops suffer poor regional seasons because of drought, floods, pests, or other causes, that is not evidence of a deteriorating global food supply.
None of this means weather cannot damage crops. It always has. It means that portraying climate change as presently creating a global food-security crisis conflicts with the direction of observed agricultural production.
The article’s treatment of energy is equally peculiar.
Euronews describes moving away from fossil fuels as part of the solution to its supposed climate “meta-crisis,” while simultaneously acknowledging that doing so creates “new dependencies” involving lithium, cobalt, rare earths, and other materials. It concedes that fossil-fuel-producing nations could be economically weakened and that entirely new geopolitical dependencies would emerge.
That sounds less like a crisis caused by climate change than economic disruption caused by policies adopted in response to climate change.
Europe provides an obvious example. Energy prices do not rise because a thermometer records a slightly higher average temperature. Prices respond to fuel availability, generating capacity, taxes, regulations, subsidies, transmission costs, geopolitical disruptions, and government decisions about which power plants may operate.
Climate Realism has repeatedly documented how wind and solar cost comparisons can omit the expense of backup generation, transmission, storage, subsidies, and other system costs necessary to accommodate intermittent generation.
There is an important distinction here that Euronews blurs: costs created by climate policy are not costs created by climate change.
The same problem occurs when the article moves from energy to economics. Weather can certainly cause economic losses. Droughts, floods, hurricanes, heat waves, freezes, and wildfires have done so throughout human history. But declaring climate change responsible for a generalized economic crisis requires evidence that those hazards are worsening in ways attributable to climate change.
Climate at a Glance: Extreme Weather summarizes observational records for floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, and other events. The picture is considerably more complicated than the simple worsening-disaster narrative presented by much of the media.
More importantly, human vulnerability to weather has declined spectacularly.
Climate at a Glance: Deaths from Extreme Weather reports that global deaths from weather-related disasters have fallen by more than 99 percent during the past century, using international disaster data.
That is a remarkable accomplishment. Wealth, infrastructure, fossil-fueled transportation, modern agriculture, heating, air conditioning, weather forecasting, communications, engineering, and emergency management have made human beings vastly more resilient to nature.
Ironically, Doussis herself provides perhaps the most sensible sentence in the entire Euronews article: “Climate change is not always to blame.”
She acknowledges that some Greek disasters reflect chronic failures in planning, complicated regulations, inadequate infrastructure, and insufficient protection of vulnerable areas.
Exactly. That caveat deserves far more attention than Euronews gives it.
A flood becomes catastrophic when people build in floodplains, drainage systems are inadequate, warning systems fail, or infrastructure is poorly maintained. Drought becomes a water crisis when reservoirs, irrigation systems, groundwater resources, and water policy are poorly managed. A heat wave becomes more dangerous when electricity is expensive or unreliable and vulnerable people cannot afford air conditioning.
Labeling all these interconnected problems a climate “meta-crisis” does not explain them. It can actually obscure their real causes.
The Euronews article commits an increasingly common journalistic error. It begins with climate change, attaches virtually every economic, geopolitical, agricultural, and social problem to it, and then presents the resulting web of associations as evidence that climate change caused the problems in the first place.
That is not how causation works.
Climate changes. Weather varies. Individual regions will experience damaging droughts, floods, fires, freezes, and heat waves, just as they always have. Sensible governments should prepare for them.
But the real-world record does not resemble the spiraling “meta-crisis” Euronews describes. Farmers are producing more food. Crop yields continue reaching records. Humanity has become dramatically less vulnerable to extreme weather. And some of Europe’s most painful energy problems have resulted from decisions about energy production rather than changes in the weather.
Euronews could have investigated those inconvenient facts. Instead, it took a collection of predictions about food, water, migration, geopolitics, and energy, wrapped them together under the fashionable label “meta-crisis,” and called it climate journalism.
That’s not evidence. It’s a narrative looking for a crisis.
European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said on September 28 that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's treatment of his German counterpart, Johann Wadephul, after their recent UN meeting demonstrates that Russia is not interested in peace in Ukraine.
In the small village of Qesarat, in southern Albania‘s Tepelenë district, an Italian-Albanian excavation team has just finished a summer season that turned up something unusual: six decorated floors from a Late Roman building, right at the edge of the Vjosa Wild River National Park. Declared in March 2023, the park protects the last stretch […]
The strides India has made in electronic warfare infrastructure often don’t get the recognition they deserve. But the system is currently more capable of countering adversary drones than protecting its own, and therein lies a problem.
Está a pensar ir comer fora? Veja aqui algumas sugestões de menus a preços económicos.
Se tem um restaurante e pretende colocar aqui – de forma gratuita – o seu menu, envio-o no dia anterior ou, no máximo, até às 10h00 do dia a que se refere para: guiaalgarve@gmail.com.
Aberto de terça a sábado, das 12h00 às 15h00 (almoço); das 15h00 às 17h00 (petiscos/snacks) e das 19h00 às 22h00 (jantar) e ao domingo, das 12h00 às 15h00
Tasca Ibérica (Portimão)
R. Poe. António Aleixo, Portimão
Aberto de 2ª a 6ª feira das 07h30 às 19h00
Restaurante Ti Emília (Portimão)
EN 124, nº6. Contacto: 963 795 627
Snack-Bar Raminha (Portimão)
Rua da Raminha, Lote 19, Loja A, Portimão
Contacto: 282 482 522
Segunda-feira:
Sopa do dia
Pernil Assado no Forno
Peixe Frito de Cebolada
Petisqueira Os Moinhos (Portimão)
Rua Projectada À Rua Caldeira Do Moinho Edif. Abicada, Lj. 6, Portimão
Russia continued its attacks on Ukraine, killing at least six people, including an Azerbaijani citizen, and injuring dozens others, including 10 children, in strikes on the Kyiv region and Kharkiv.
One of my fundamental beliefs about the world is that Ramez Naam ought to blog more. Ramez is one of the world’s greatest futurists — he predicted the solar and battery revolutions long before these were widely understood. If you were reading Ramez in 2011, you were able to understand the future of both energy technology and climate change, […]
Hoje recorda-se o cientista francês Louis Pasteur, que morreu neste dia, em 1895. Levou a cabo descobertas notáveis, que preveniram doenças. Pasteur é considerado um dos três principais fundadores da microbiologia. No dia 27 de dezembro de 1822, nasceu em Dole, França, Louis Pasteur, que viria a tornar-se num dos maiores nomes da ciência, graças […]
Cuando los arqueólogos abrieron aquel túmulo cerca del mar de Azov esperaban encontrar, sobre todo, tumbas de la Edad del Bronce. Y las encontraron, treinta y una en total. Pero entre ellas apareció algo que no cuadraba con el resto: un hombre de entre 25 y 35 años, tendido boca arriba con los brazos estirados […]
En abril de 2009, varios periódicos de medio mundo publicaron a la vez un titular que parecía sacado de un cóctel, según el cual el centro de la galaxia sabe a frambuesa y huele a ron. La frase salió del Guardian, que la construyó a partir de un comunicado del Instituto Max Planck de Radioastronomía, […]
Na semana em que se assinalam as Jornadas Europeias do Património, há uma boa notícia para Loulé: o Museu Municipal de Loulé acaba de integrar formalmente a Rede Nacional do Património Cultural Imaterial (RNPCI), numa decisão que reconhece o trabalho contínuo do Município algarvio na salvaguarda, investigação e valorização das tradições, saberes e memórias locais.
Este momento reflete o forte compromisso do Município de Loulé para com o património vivo, as tradições orais, as práticas sociais e os saber-fazer artesanais que definem a identidade deste território.
A integração nesta plataforma nacional surge como o resultado da estratégia que a Autarquia de Loulé tem desenvolvido através da sua estrutura polinucleada de espaços museológicos, em vários pontos do concelho. Polos como o da Água, em Querença, dos Banhos Islâmicos e Casa Senhorial dos Barreto, da Cozinha Tradicional ou dos Frutos Secos, em Loulé, a par das dinâmicas ligadas aos ofícios tradicionais, têm sido fundamentais para manter vivas as memórias e os costumes da comunidade louletana.
Destaca-se igualmente a clara aposta do Museu num programa de atividades educativas, dirigido sobretudo à comunidade escolar, que tem contribuído para tornar este património cultural imaterial num parceiro de aprendizagem dos alunos.
A Rede Nacional do Património Cultural Imaterial funciona como uma plataforma informal e dinâmica de partilha de conhecimento e boas práticas, focada na salvaguarda e revitalização do património cultural imaterial em Portugal. Alinhada com os princípios da UNESCO e os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável das Nações Unidas, esta rede procura melhorar a qualidade de vida das populações através da valorização da sua cultura. A sua atuação estruturada combina quatro eixos estratégicos principais: a identificação e salvaguarda, o reconhecimento e promoção, a documentação, comunicação e mediação, e o estabelecimento de redes e parcerias.
A Rede Nacional do Património Cultural Imaterial desempenha um papel crucial na política cultural contemporânea. Em primeiro lugar, porque promove a cooperação e partilha nacional já que funciona como uma plataforma articulada que facilita o intercâmbio de boas práticas, metodologias de investigação e estratégias de salvaguarda entre municípios, museus e investigadores de todo o país.
Por outro lado, contribui para o combate ao desaparecimento de saberes, garantindo uma maior visibilidade e apoio técnico especializado para a proteção de manifestações culturais em risco de extinção, promovendo a transmissão intergeracional.
A integração nesta rede robustece ainda o posicionamento no acesso a fundos nacionais e comunitários específicos para a cultura, potenciando também o turismo sustentável e de base identitária.
Para o executivo municipal, este reconhecimento valida a visão definida na Estratégia Municipal de Cultura Loulé 2034, que assume a cultura e a identidade como pilares de desenvolvimento sustentável e coesão territorial, e reforça a candidatura de Loulé a Capital Portuguesa da Cultura 2028.
Com esta integração, o Museu Municipal de Loulé assume a responsabilidade acrescida de continuar a trabalhar em estreita proximidade com os portadores do património – os artesãos, os guardiões das tradições orais e a comunidade local – garantindo que a riqueza imaterial de Loulé continue a ser uma fonte de inspiração, educação e dinamismo económico para as futuras gerações.
Login
