© Nicole Craine for The New York Times
© Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times
In recent days, a Ukrainian drone strike hit Russia’s largest data center, owned by bank and technology company Sberbank. The strike came after Ukraine hit three data centers belonging to the tech giant Yandex, which is often referred to as “Russia’s Google.” After those attacks, Yandex’s traffic dropped 94%. Its users experienced heavy disruption to […]
The post Data centers in the line of fire of Ukraine war appeared first on Asia Times.
US measles outbreak reaches 4,410 cases in 2026, with Pennsylvania hit hardest as health officials urge families to complete MMR vaccination.
Related: U.S. Lifts Ban on New Flights from AIFA and AICM
The US measles outbreak has reached 4,410 confirmed cases in 2026, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, known as the CDC.
The figure is more than double the total recorded during all of 2025 and represents the country’s highest level of measles transmission since 1991.
The CDC said the cases had been reported across 45 states and Washington, D.C. as of October 15. The agency also reported 451 hospitalizations, equivalent to approximately 10 percent of confirmed infections.
Health officials say the outbreak reflects a sustained decline in vaccination coverage across the country. Measles is one of the most contagious viruses known to medicine, and communities with low immunization rates are especially vulnerable to rapid transmission.
The CDC has deployed specialists from its Epidemic Intelligence Service to support contact tracing, community containment and local public-health responses in the most affected areas.
The agency has urged residents in outbreak zones to ensure that they have received the two recommended doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, known as the MMR vaccine.
The vaccine is considered highly effective and has been used for decades to prevent measles, a disease that can cause pneumonia, brain inflammation, permanent disability and death.
The current outbreak has exposed the consequences of declining immunization rates, vaccine misinformation and the weakening of public-health infrastructure in several US communities.
CDC measles surveillance | Pennsylvania Department of Health
Pennsylvania has become the epicenter of the US measles outbreak, with 1,260 confirmed cases across 43 counties.
The state has reported 238 hospitalizations and five measles-related deaths, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
Pennsylvania’s outbreak has grown rapidly. The state reported only 106 cases in 2025, meaning the current total represents an increase of more than ten times compared with last year.
Health officials have described the situation as the most severe measles emergency in the United States and have intensified contact tracing, isolation measures and vaccination campaigns.
South Carolina has reported the second-highest number of cases, with 670 infections. The state has recorded 67 hospitalizations and no confirmed deaths.
Utah follows with 535 cases, including 53 hospitalizations and no reported deaths.
Wisconsin has recorded 256 cases, 25 hospitalizations and no deaths. Texas has reported 192 cases, 19 hospitalizations and no deaths.
New York has recorded 103 cases when state and New York City figures are combined. The state has reported 10 hospitalizations and no deaths.
The CDC said children and adolescents between the ages of 5 and 19 account for 42 percent of infections, or 1,856 cases.
Adults over the age of 20 account for approximately 40 percent of cases, while children under five represent about 17 percent.
The distribution shows that measles is affecting people across all age groups, although unvaccinated children remain particularly vulnerable.
The CDC reported that 96 percent of patients had no documented record of MMR vaccination. The figure highlights the central role of immunization gaps in the spread of the virus.
Measles can spread through the air when an infected person coughs, sneezes or breathes. The virus can remain infectious in the air and on surfaces for up to two hours after an infected person leaves an area.
A person with measles can transmit the virus to as many as 12 to 18 people who are not immune. That makes measles one of the most transmissible infectious diseases in the world.
Symptoms usually begin with fever, cough, runny nose, red eyes and a sore throat. A rash typically appears several days later, beginning on the face and spreading to the rest of the body.
Complications can include ear infections, diarrhea, pneumonia, encephalitis and long-term neurological damage. Young children, pregnant women and people with weakened immune systems face the greatest risk.
Pan American Health Organization | World Health Organization—Measles
The resurgence of the US measles outbreak is being driven by declining vaccination coverage and the accumulation of susceptible people in communities across the country.
The United States declared measles eliminated in 2000 after achieving sustained reductions in domestic transmission. The designation meant that the virus was no longer circulating continuously within the country.
That achievement depended on high vaccination coverage, strong surveillance systems and rapid responses to imported cases.
However, the number of nonmedical school exemptions has increased in recent years. Some families have declined vaccination because of religious beliefs, personal objections or distrust of public-health institutions.
Anti-vaccine groups have also spread misinformation about the MMR vaccine, including false claims linking it to autism. Scientific studies have repeatedly found no credible evidence supporting that claim.
The decline in trust has left some communities below the threshold needed for herd immunity.
Health experts say that at least 95 percent of a community must be immune to prevent sustained transmission of measles. The threshold is higher than for many other vaccine-preventable diseases because measles is so contagious.
When coverage falls below that level, imported cases can quickly trigger outbreaks, particularly among children who have not been vaccinated.
The CDC has reported that 18 of this year’s cases involved international visitors to the United States. Imported infections can introduce the virus into communities with low immunity and lead to extensive local transmission.
The outbreak has also raised concerns about the country’s measles-elimination status. If transmission continues for more than 12 consecutive months, the United States could lose the designation it achieved in 2000.
The Pan American Health Organization, known as PAHO, has warned that the risk of measles transmission across the Americas is very high.
The organization reported that the region had recorded its highest number of confirmed measles cases in 22 years. As of epidemiological week 28, countries and territories in the Americas had reported 47,459 confirmed cases.[paho]
PAHO said the increase was linked to ongoing outbreaks, low vaccination coverage, accumulated immunity gaps and greater population mobility associated with international travel and mass gatherings.
The organization has urged countries to strengthen routine vaccination, improve surveillance and respond rapidly to suspected cases.
PAHO has also warned that declining immunization rates threaten the protection achieved over previous decades and could expose communities to repeated health crises.
The organization has called on governments to ensure that vaccines are available, accessible and trusted by local communities.
The US measles outbreak has implications beyond public health because it reflects the weakening of international cooperation against vaccine-preventable diseases.
Measles does not respect borders. A single infected traveler can introduce the virus into a country or region with low immunization coverage.
The outbreak in the United States could affect travel, schools, workplaces and health systems in neighboring countries. Canada, Mexico and other nations in the Americas have already reported significant increases in measles cases.
PAHO has urged countries to coordinate surveillance and share information to prevent further regional spread.
The crisis also highlights the political consequences of vaccine misinformation. Public trust in health institutions has declined in many countries, making it harder for authorities to promote vaccination campaigns.
The United States has faced growing resistance to routine immunization, particularly in communities where political polarization has influenced attitudes toward public-health measures.
The current outbreak could force federal, state and local authorities to strengthen vaccination requirements, improve access to clinics and invest in community outreach.
Health experts say the response must combine vaccination with accurate information, accessible healthcare and support for families who have questions about vaccines.
The immediate priority is to increase MMR coverage in affected communities and prevent further hospitalizations and deaths.
The CDC has emphasized that two doses of the MMR vaccine provide long-lasting protection and are essential for preventing severe disease.
The current outbreak demonstrates that measles can return quickly when immunization coverage weakens. Restoring herd immunity will require coordinated action by federal agencies, state governments, healthcare providers and local communities.
Ask a chatbot why something happened in the war, and the answer may be written by Russia. Russia is poisoning AI chatbots with millions of fake articles so they repeat Kremlin narratives as fact, a cognitive weapon with strategic impact, Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces commander Robert “Madiar” Brovdi warns on Telegram.
Russia has waged a cognitive war against Ukraine for years, and it intensified sharply with the full-scale invasion. This war goes beyond fake news and disinformation: it aims to shape the deeply ingrained beliefs that drive people’s attitudes, decisions and behavior, and its newest weapon is artificial intelligence.
Brovdi calls it a cognitive operation with strategic impact, one his forces studied among the technological risks of 2027. People increasingly ask a chatbot “why did X happen?” and take the instant answer, he explains, without asking where it comes from.
“Artificial intelligence does not know the truth. It retells the internet, literally,” Brovdi claims.
Brovdi lays out a chain that turns a single lie into something a machine will repeat as fact:
The attack runs on volume. Russia floods the web through the “Pravda” network, close to 200 sites in dozens of languages posting 4 to 6 million near-identical articles a year, Brovdi claims, written for machines, not people.
It works, by his account. Of the ten most popular chatbots studied, about a third of the time they reproduce Russian fakes, he noted, and four of ten in a 2024 test affirmed that Azov fighters had burned an effigy of Trump, a fabrication, and cited sources for it.
Brovdi is blunt about the balance. Ukraine is losing this fight to Russia’s troll farms, he concedes, even as a layer of homegrown trolls has sprung up too.
His closing advice was aimed at readers.
“Critical thinking should not be delegated. Not even to the smartest machine. Switch on your own judgment and always check the source and the information,” Brovdi states.
Andy Burnham's claim that Russia interfered with Brexit is risible for one very simple reason, says Ben Pile: EU policy on climate and energy is so suicidal that Putin could not have wanted Britain to leave.
The post Burnham’s Russia Narrative Car Crash is Worse Than We Thought appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
© Anastasia Barashkova/Reuters
Les investisseurs n'ont d'yeux que pour elle ; ses architectes toisent les chefs d'État ; son usage se propage comme le feu dans la plaine : l'intelligence artificielle, dit-on, va transformer l'humanité. Mais l'humanité le veut-elle ? Face au Moloch numérique, qui exige le sacrifice de l'emploi, du climat et de la vie privée, les résistances se multiplient. Sauront-elles s'organiser alors que les grands partis, obnubilés par les machines, regardent ailleurs ?
« Il y a une bataille, dehors, qui bat son plein. Elle ébranlera bientôt vos fenêtres et secouera vos murs. » L'air de cette chanson de Bob Dylan sur les temps qui changent a-t-il effleuré l'esprit de M. Eric Schmidt le 15 mai dernier ? Ce vendredi-là, l'ancien président-directeur général de Google et ex-conseiller du Pentagone avait revêtu la coiffe à pompon, la toge à revers jaune et le sourire satisfait pour discourir devant un parterre d'étudiants de l'université de Tucson, en Arizona, à l'occasion de la remise des diplômes. Était-ce la cinquantième ou la centième fois qu'il débitait machinalement son topo sur l'intelligence-artificielle-qui-va-tout-bouleverser ? Soudain, un concert de huées et de cris de rage l'interrompt, et le tohu-bohu redouble sitôt qu'il articule ses lettres fétiches, « I » et « A ». Son sourire se fige en rictus. « Je sais ce que beaucoup d'entre vous ressentent. (…) Je comprends cette peur », lance M. Schmidt — dont la fortune dépasse 60 milliards de dollars — à des étudiants lestés d'une dette moyenne de 35 000 dollars, et dont l'IA menace d'annihiler les futurs emplois.
L'incident n'est pas isolé. Une houle contestataire enfle aux États-Unis contre le culte de l'automatisation, les ravages du tout-numérique, la prolifération des centres de données, l'arrogance et le pouvoir des élites de la tech, la corruption des élus qui se prosternent à leurs pieds. Jet de cocktail Molotov sur le domicile du fondateur d'OpenAI en avril, tirs d'armes à feu contre celui d'un conseiller municipal d'Indianapolis favorable à l'installation d'un data center, manifestions locales : les indices d'un grand ras-le-bol s'empilent. Au moment où l'avant-garde du secteur — OpenAI, Anthropic — annonce des entrées en Bourse, le Wall Street Journal frissonne : « La seule chose qui croît plus vite que ce secteur de l'IA, c'est peut-être le sentiment négatif des Américains à son égard (1). » À en croire les enquêtes d'opinion, c'est le cas d'une majorité d'entre eux ; plus des deux tiers jugent « trop rapide » le développement de cette nouvelle technologie, y compris les 18-29 ans (64 %) (2).
Comme la plupart des changements technologiques majeurs, le déferlement de l'IA sur les sociétés n'a fait l'objet d'aucune délibération collective ni même d'une discussion publique.
Le schéma n'a pas fondamentalement varié depuis la fin du XIXe siècle : les pouvoirs publics encouragent ces impositions privées au nom d'une « modernisation » qui consiste à liquider les classes « arriérées » soupçonnées d'entraver la marche en avant économique — artisans, paysans, ouvriers, employés. Mais, cette fois, l'ampleur et la rapidité du choc provoquent une rébellion à la composition sociale inédite. Les nouveaux luddites se recrutent aussi bien parmi les étudiants, les éleveurs, les catholiques galvanisés par l'encyclique papale Magnifica humanitas, qui appelle à « désarmer l'IA », qu'au sein de la bourgeoisie nationale-conservatrice de type MAGA (« Make America Great Again »). Pour le moment, rien n'agrège ces groupes dont les colères procèdent de trois logiques dissemblables.
La première, et la plus évidente, tient à la perspective d'un grand remplacement des cadres et professions intellectuelles supérieures par des machines. Des secteurs qui avaient accueilli la désindustrialisation avec l'indifférence hautaine que leur inspirait la foi dans l'« économie du savoir » se trouvent à leur tour menacés. La litanie des suppressions de postes dans la finance, le conseil, l'ingénierie informatique, l'architecture, la programmation ainsi que dans le monde de l'information, de la communication et des arts, etc., provoque un dessillement brutal, en particulier chez les plus jeunes, que le système d'enseignement américain fait entrer sur le marché du travail l'enclume de la dette au cou. Dans l'ombre de ces professions chargées de mettre en scène l'espace public, l'automatisation assombrit aussi l'avenir de cohortes d'invisibles : les employés administratifs du privé comme du public, incarnations des petites classes moyennes, souvent très féminisées, dont les fonctions dites « support » ou « d'arrière-boutique » (back-office) se trouvent confrontées à une vague de numérisation (3).
Si la classe dominante occidentale avait pu se satisfaire du chômage des prolétaires, qui produisaient beaucoup mais consommaient peu et faisaient peser sur la vie politique le souvenir déplaisant des révolutions, la robotisation des métiers occupés par les populations aisées introduit une double inconnue dans l'équation socio-économique : comment faire tourner la machine si les groupes qui tirent la consommation intérieure s'appauvrissent ? Comment perpétuer le théâtre politique si les couches-cibles des grands partis dépriment ou se rebellent (4) ? Bien sûr, les prophéties du déclassement numérique hantaient déjà le salariat dans les années 1990, et Internet a renouvelé plutôt qu'anéanti les classes moyennes. Mais le séisme de l'IA s'annonce d'une tout autre magnitude.
Pendant que les économistes libéraux prophétisent un ruissellement universel de lait et de miel, l'un des spécialistes mondiaux des effets de l'innovation prévient : « L'intelligence artificielle devrait creuser l'écart entre les revenus du capital et ceux du travail (5). » Ses infrastructures absorbent les investissements au détriment des autres secteurs, ses valorisations boursières enrichissent les riches et limitent la liberté de contestation de cette moitié des Américains dont l'épargne et les retraites dépendent des marchés. Davantage de milliardaires ou tous à la rue, l'alternative a de quoi enchanter. Les dirigeants de la Silicon Valley, qui devinent une fin de soirée difficile, réclament une forme de redistribution des bénéfices qui limiterait la prolétarisation de leurs clients.
À la perspective du chômage des diplômés s'ajoute l'angoisse, corrosive bien que statistiquement invisible, d'être inutile au monde. Et trahi par ceux qui le dirigent. Le pouvoir des élites non élues alimente une deuxième forme de colère. L'affaire Mythos en fournit une bonne illustration. En avril dernier, la société Anthropic choisit de ne pas rendre public Claude Mythos Preview, son dernier modèle d'IA, si puissant, prétend-elle, que des utilisateurs malintentionnés pourraient s'en servir pour compromettre des infrastructures informatiques critiques. Éthique ou promotionnel, le geste a immédiatement suscité un malaise bien résumé par la juriste Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat : « Les sociétés démocratiques ne devraient pas dépendre de la retenue morale des dirigeants d'entreprise lorsque l'enjeu concerne la stabilité de nos systèmes financiers, de nos réseaux électriques, de nos hôpitaux et de nos élections (6). » Pendant qu'il est encore temps, « l'État doit intervenir et légiférer vigoureusement », plaide-t-elle. C'est précisément ce que M. Donald Trump veut empêcher afin de favoriser les champions américains dans leur compétition avec la Chine (7). L'affrontement mondial autour de l'IA a d'ailleurs incité la Maison Blanche à suspendre mi-juin l'accès des non-Américains a une version bridée de Mythos. Soucieux d'évoluer dans un cadre clair et prévisible, le fondateur d'Anthropic réclame « une réglementation plus stricte et contraignante de l'IA ». Et M. Chris Lehane, directeur des affaires internationales d'OpenAI, suggère que les intérêts imbriqués de l'État et de l'industrie numérique « nécessiteraient pour les gérer la mise en place d'un nouvel hybride public-privé » (8). Dans tous les cas, les impératifs géopolitiques oblitèrent les considérations démocratiques.
Par-delà ses effets sur l'emploi, cette IA en roue libre dirigée par des suprémacistes technologiques nourrit l'idée d'une perte de contrôle face à une technologie caractérisée par son autonomie croissante — les modèles de génération suivante écriront eux-mêmes les lignes de code nécessaires à leur propre perfectionnement… Évidente pour les dirigeants, ce genre de fuite en avant ne va pas de soi pour les autres. Car le type même de rapports sociaux qu'implique l'automatisation révolte le public, et en particulier ceux que l'hebdomadaire The Economist (6 juin 2026) baptise avec épouvante la « Gen Z socialiste » : surveillance généralisée, inégalités abyssales, indifférence à l'environnement, cynisme des élites de la tech qui interdisent à leurs enfants les services qu'ils imposent au reste du monde, interactions robotisées pour les pauvres et domesticité humaine pour les riches.
Manque à ce tableau idyllique le carburant de la machine : la puissance de calcul. Et donc les centres de données. Or une proportion croissante d'Américains — 70 % en mars selon Gallup — refusent l'implantation dans leur voisinage de ces installations bruyantes, polluantes, qui dévorent les paysages, amputent les terres agricoles, assèchent les nappes phréatiques, emploient peu de salariés et, surtout, font exploser les prix de l'électricité. Leur multiplication rend le sujet brûlant : les États-Unis comptaient en avril dernier plus de 3 000 grands data centers opérationnels, essentiellement dans des aires urbaines, mais les 1 500 supplémentaires en cours de construction se situent aux deux tiers en zones rurales, en particulier dans le Sud et le Midwest (9). Ces projets — qui ne répondent pas à un besoin au moment de leur mise en chantier — anticipent la croissance exponentielle de l'IA : le pari d'un avenir virtuel déglingue la vie réelle.
Contrairement aux deux premières, cette troisième composante de la colère contre l'IA s'appuie sur des communautés locales, des mobilisations tangibles ainsi que sur une base sociologiquement diversifiée et transpartisane : mères de famille inquiètes pour l'environnement, chrétiens du Texas, fermiers, ouvriers républicains, techniciens des télécommunications, militants progressistes. « Le niveau d'opposition ne varie pas significativement en fonction de l'âge, de l'origine ethnique, du niveau d'études, du revenu ou du degré d'urbanisation », observe l'enquête de Gallup publiée le 13 mai dernier. « L'affrontement n'oppose pas la droite à la gauche, les démocrates aux républicains, les banlieues à la campagne. En réalité, c'est le haut contre le bas », explique M. Saul Levin, un activiste interrogé par le journaliste Andrew Cockburn. Son enquête à Saline, une petite ville du Michigan où doit s'implanter un data center à 16 milliards de dollars, montre la distance qui s'installe entre, d'un côté, les élus déconcertés par l'opposition locale, les pontes de la tech qui dépêchent avocats et lobbyistes pour les dissuader d'agir, les dirigeants de compagnies d'électricité qui font monter les prix, et, de l'autre, des administrés massés dans les mairies qui secouent leurs représentants (10). La plupart ne s'étaient jamais mobilisés. Un peu comme les « gilets jaunes » en France en 2018-2019, ils se sentent trompés par les politiciens et découvrent la puissance de l'action collective. Le site DataCenterWatch.org dénombre 142 groupes militants dans 24 États. Au cours du seul premier trimestre 2026, 75 projets ont été bloqués ou retardés pour une valeur estimée à 130 milliards de dollars, contre 48 projets ajournés ou annulés pour 156 milliards de dollars au cours de l'année 2025. « Les élus de plus de dix États ont déposé cette année des projets de loi visant à suspendre la construction », rapportait début juin le Washington Post. Et « les habitants de Monterey Park, en Californie, ont approuvé la première interdiction permanente des centres de données, avec plus de 86 % des suffrages » (11).
Alors qu'édiles locaux et parlementaires accueillaient avec des cris d'amour et d'exubérantes exonérations fiscales ces cathédrales numériques louangées par M. Trump, l'aversion qu'elles suscitent désormais constitue un enjeu des élections de mi-mandat. Pourtant, à l'exception de quelques figures de gauche (MM. Bernie Sanders et Ro Khanna, Mme Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, partisans d'un moratoire dans la construction des data centers) ou républicaines (M. Ronald DeSantis, Mme Marjorie Taylor Greene), la contestation populaire ne trouve qu'un relais limité, y compris chez les démocrates. La pression des industriels, les campagnes de dénigrement financées par les lobbys et l'influence de certains syndicats favorables aux installations douchent les velléités oppositionnelles.
Toujours à l'affût d'un élixir qui revitaliserait un mouvement MAGA déboussolé par l'aventurisme militaire de M. Trump et sa dévotion pour les milliardaires de la tech, l'ancien stratège de la Maison Blanche Steve Bannon a, lui, publié en avril une lettre signée d'une soixantaine de personnalités conservatrices proches du président américain pour exhorter ce dernier à réglementer l'IA. « Nous savons que nous ne pouvons pas compter sur ces entreprises pour s'autoréguler », explique le document. La missive était conçue comme une rampe de lancement de « Humans First », déclinaison numérique d'« America First » : « Les mondialistes du numérique cherchent à détourner notre mouvement pour pousser Washington à faire passer les géants de l'IA avant le peuple américain. “Humans First” marque le début de la lutte pour reconquérir notre pays. » Pendant que les partis tergiversent, l'extrême droite tente sa chance…
Déjà, la bataille dépasse le cadre américain. L'IA et les data centers mobilisent au Chili, au Mexique, en Espagne. En France, où M. Emmanuel Macron abaisse le marchepied aux industriels du numérique, le foisonnement des centres de données à Marseille, Grenoble, en Seine-et-Marne, dans les Hauts-de-France, etc., attise le mécontentement des riverains et favorise l'éclosion de collectifs d'opposants. Si l'impopularité abyssale du président de la République ne joue pas en faveur de son IA chérie, la poursuite de la numérisation à marche forcée reste étrangement absente de la campagne électorale qui démarre. Après la propriété, le libre-échange, l'intégration européenne ou l'Alliance atlantique, cette question compte-t-elle désormais au nombre des sujets sur lesquels le vote n'a pas prise ? La peur de rater l'avenir, la mauvaise réputation de mouvements politiquement hétérogènes, l'attrait d'une feinte souveraineté faite d'infrastructures certes locales mais qui tournent sur des puces américaines Nvidia anesthésient le sens critique des meilleures volontés.
« L'humain d'abord » ou « Humans first », populisme populaire ou nationalisme réactionnaire, « gilets jaunes » ou Tea Party : le destin du soulèvement contre les machines pose l'une des grandes questions politiques de notre temps.
(1) Amrith Ramkumar, Katherine Blunt et Lindsay Ellis, « The American rebellion against AI Is gaining steam », The Wall Street Journal, New York, 18 mai 2026.
(2) Mike Allen, « AI hate wave is here », Axios, 17 mai 2026.
(3) Ben Casselman, « Forget about coders. The real A.I. threat is in the back office », The New York Times, 15 juin 2026.
(4) Lire Frédéric Lordon, « Marx va avoir raison (IA et lutte des classes) », La pompe à phynance, Les blogs du Diplo, 2 mars 2026.
(5) Daron Acemoglu, « The simple macroeconomics of AI », (PDF), NBER working paper, mai 2024.
(6) Mariana Olaizola Rosenblat, « The governance gap Mythos exposed — And how to address it », Just Security, 29 avril 2026.
(7) Lire Evgeny Morozov, « Face à la Chine, l'Amérique a un plan », Le Monde diplomatique, juin 2026.
(8) Respectivement Dario Amodei, « Politicy on the AI exponential », Dario Amodei, juin 2026, et Axios, 13 mai 2026.
(9) Skyler Seets et Kaitlyn Radde, « Most new data centers in the U.S. are coming to rural areas », Pew Research Center, 13 avril 2026. D'autres sources dénombrent davantage d'installations.
(10) Andrew Cockburn, « The data-center divide. Why politicians are squandering the anti-AI backlash », Harper's, New York, juin 2026.
(11) Liz Goodwin et Riley Beggin, « Why most politicians are not calling for data center bans despite voter's anger », The Washington Post, 7 juin 2026.
The claim that strikes on Russian tech giant Yandex thinned out social media bots finds no support in the networks tracked by Ukrainian disinformation-monitoring company LetsData, co-founder Ksenia Iliuk told Euromaidan Press on 13 October. She cautioned that the strikes may still have affected networks outside the company’s view.
At the Warsaw Security Forum, Lithuania’s prime minister suggested allies should ask Ukraine to strike more Russian data centers because that might help protect European elections from foreign interference. Bot networks are one tool of that interference, so whether the strikes mute them carries weight well beyond Ukraine.
Drones hit Yandex data centers in Sasovo and Vladimir between 8 and 11 October. Ukrainian drone maker Fire Point said its FP-1 drones struck Yandex’s Kaluga site in between. On 12 October, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told the Warsaw Security Forum that once Ukraine’s response reached Yandex, social media had fewer bots.
LetsData checked X and Facebook, where bot networks usually stand out clearly, Iliuk said. Its analysts looked at networks attributed to Russia’s influence ecosystem. Among them are groups of X accounts spreading domains from what she called a new wave of Doppelgänger, a Russian campaign that clones real news sites.
Those networks look unaffected, Iliuk said. None of them has stopped posting or broken its usual rhythm, she added. Some are slightly less active, but LetsData’s analysts say that is typical for them. The networks run on a weekly cycle, and the check fell in the part of the week when they post less.
LetsData worked with two samples. One covers accounts that systematically target Ukraine, Moldova, and Armenia. The other covers bot networks the company has followed for some time that keep changing their target audience, so they have no fixed country.
About two weeks ago, one network from that second sample wrote about elections in Germany and spread fake Die Welt sites, she said. It now posts about mobilization in Ukraine and shares a fake site of Ukrinform, Ukraine’s state news agency.
The company can compare only within networks whose usual behavior it knows, Iliuk said. Checking the whole internet is impossible because the scale is colossal, she said. A Cloudflare chart that circulated as evidence counted automated web requests from Yandex’s network, including its search crawlers, not social media posts, Cybernews reported.
So the networks LetsData follows show no impact, Iliuk said. That does not mean the strikes had no effect at all, she noted. They may have shown up in networks the company isn’t tracking now. LetsData will keep watching and report other signals if they appear.
UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham said Russia interfered in the 2016 referendum that took Britain out of the European Union, in podcast excerpts released on 11 October, the Associated Press reported. His remarks are believed to be the first time a British prime minister has publicly acknowledged such meddling.
Russia’s information war keeps running through Europe’s ballots. German security sources said in August that Moscow was escalating disinformation before state elections, and Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation found more than 200 Russian fake news sites aimed at France last year.
Burnham told The Rest Is Politics podcast that he asked his advisers whether Russia had interfered in the 2016 vote. He asked after taking office in July.
“I’ve had the clear answer that yes, there was,” he said.
He argued that such things must now be put clearly on the record. He did not say how Russia interfered or offer evidence, and Moscow has long denied interfering in foreign votes.
Burnham said he had discussed Russian interference with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in Berlin the previous week. “You know he was saying to me that the AfD are clearly linked to Russia, funded I believe,” Burnham said, referring to Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany party. Putting such interference on the record would help “voters in Germany and France understand that some of this politics is instigated via our enemies, namely Russia,” he added.
In 2020, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee found that the government had actively avoided investigating whether Russia meddled in the referendum. The report noted open-source signs of Russian attempts to sway the Brexit campaign. The government, it said, had never looked for hard evidence.
The government rejected the committee’s call for a review.
“We have seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum,” it said.
That same year, London said Russian actors had almost certainly tried to interfere in the 2019 general election. The government said they did it by amplifying leaked UK-US trade documents online.
Three weeks ago, Burnham stopped short of this. At the UN General Assembly on 22 September, he said the Kremlin spends around £1.3 billion each year on manipulating information. That is roughly $1.7 billion at recent exchange rates. He cited evidence that Russian agencies tried to interfere in the 2019 general election, but he did not mention 2016.
In the same speech, he said Britain had already helped Moldova protect its elections from Russian interference.
Ukraine’s drone strikes on Russian tech giant Yandex thinned out social media bots, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on 12 October. Network data do show Yandex’s automated traffic collapsing after the strikes. Disinformation researchers say that traffic is search crawling, not trolls. A Ukrainian social media monitor told Euromaidan Press its own data show no clear drop in bot activity either.
Russian influence operations are a live threat to European votes. In August, the Matryoshka network fabricated news clips aimed at Sweden’s general election. German and French authorities flagged the same network targeting Germany’s local votes and French presidential hopeful Gabriel Attal. A way to switch such networks off would hand allies a new tool, which is why the claim needs testing.
Addressing the Warsaw Security Forum by video link, Zelenskyy said that once Ukraine began answering Russia’s operation against Ukrainian data centers and its strikes reached Yandex, many social media platforms suddenly became a little easier to breathe on.
Many people noticed less hatred, discord, and provocation because there were fewer bots, he said. It was quite clear where those bots came from, he noted. Their disappearance once Yandex went down proves again that Europe is not the source of the problems, he added.
Lithuanian Prime Minister Mindaugas Sinkevičius said at the same forum that allies should ask Zelenskyy to strike more data centers in Russia, answering a question on how to protect their elections from interference.
Drones first hit Yandex’s data center in Sasovo, Ryazan Oblast, on 8 October. Yandex said it shut the site down completely. The next day, a strike on its Kaluga site completely disabled several modules, the company said. Yandex calls Kaluga its largest data center, Russian science outlet T-Invariant noted.
Ukrainian drone maker Fire Point said its FP-1 long-range drones carried out that strike.
After the first strike, on Sasovo, a source at Yandex summed up the mood for The Bell: “Things are rotten. We keep working.”
Overnight on 11 October, drones hit the third site, in Vladimir. Yandex said it fully halted that data center too. Vladimir Oblast Governor Aleksandr Avdeev acknowledged an attack on “infrastructure” near the city. It started a fire and cut power to two substations serving 5,000 residents, he claimed.
Dima, have you tried turning it off and on again?
— Fire Point (@FirePointUA) October 11, 2026
Automated web requests from Yandex’s network fell to 0.4% of their two-week peak after the third strike, Cloudflare Radar data showed, Cybernews reported. That chart counts automated requests to websites, mostly from Yandex’s own search crawlers. It does not count social media posts.
The chart “has nothing to do with social media,” the Russian opposition analysis group Antibot4navalny wrote.
To those implying that Kremlin-controlled social media bot/troll farms became silent after Ukraine hit a Yandex data center, posting this CloudFare chart ( radar.cloudflare.com/bots/as13238 ):Hate to disappoint you all
— antibot4navalny | bot blocker | блокировщик ботов (@antibot4navalny.bsky.social) 2026-10-11T20:54:52.717Z
Russia’s overall bot traffic last week looked much like any other week. Yandex’s own figure began recovering on Sunday. Covert troll farms usually hide behind residential proxies, hacked devices, virtual private networks (VPNs), and Western cloud providers, the outlet added.
Yevhen Luzan tracks Ukrainian social media sentiment as an analyst at the Ukrainian nonprofit CAT-UA. Its daily reviews sample about 500 random posts. On 11 October, that sample showed an unusually small share of posts criticizing Ukraine’s authorities, he told Euromaidan Press. Accounts showing signs of bot activity made up only a few tenths of a percent of that criticism. That is within the margin of error.
The same day, though, US President Donald Trump’s deal for Russian diesel supplies dominated Ukrainian feeds. Luzan said a rally-around-the-flag effect could explain the shift, as outrage at Washington crowded out domestic stories.
“To state it definitively and draw a cause-and-effect link from this correlation would be too bold,” he said.
Across the wider pool of about 10,000 daily mentions, CAT-UA sees no significant drop in posting activity in recent days. The curve shows only the usual rises and dips around the start and end of the week, Luzan said.
“For now, even a hypothetical drop in bot farm activity dissolves entirely in the natural fluctuations of the information space,” he said.
The claim that Russian social media bots fell by half is unproven and built on a misread chart, disinformation analyst Joohn Choe concluded in a fact-check. It traces back to an 8 October post by security researcher Jeremiah Fowler. That post said Russian bot traffic had dropped to 49%. On 11 October, radio reporter Jamie Dupree spread it on X. Tom’s Hardware then ran it under a headline calling the crawler traffic “Russian disinformation bot traffic,” wording it has since changed.
According to Cloudflare Data Explorer the amount of russian bot traffic has dropped to 49% after Ukraine struck a yandex data center. Could this disrupt the midterm elections in the US? pic.twitter.com/SRtMyjaV22
— Jeremiah Fowler Security Researcher (@yoda69) October 8, 2026
Ukrainian military analyst Tatarigami claimed that Texas separatist accounts with identical “Veteran, Christian, Father, MAGA” bios had gone quiet. He said Quebec separatists and Polish anti-EU accounts went quiet alongside them.
Polish military analyst Jarosław Wolski claimed that AfD’s online support fell 56%, posting a chart without naming its source. Another X user said “Polish” bots had vanished.
Zderusyfikowany internet (ukraińskie trafienia w centra Yandexa) nagle objawia cuda w socjalach: poparcie dla AfD w socjalmediach spadło o 56%. Mniej "polskich" kont szczujących na Ukraińców, mniej "ukraińskich" szczujących na Polaków, poparcie w sieci dla MAGA gwałtownie spadło… pic.twitter.com/zi4rwqNR9I
— Jarosław Wolski (@wolski_jaros) October 11, 2026
Thomas Sankara had a signature look: a natty red beret, worn with military fatigues. A striking figure, Sankara was a military officer and the radical, anti-imperialist prime minister of the Republic of Upper Volta. His arrest in 1983 led to demonstrations, followed by a coup, after which Sankara was released and installed as president. By the following year Sankara had given the country he now led its new name — Burkina Faso. He fashioned a Burkinabè identity in his own anti-imperialist image, eschewing French for local languages, promoting economic self-reliance and national pride.
In 1986, he famously took the then French president François Mitterrand to task in a fiery speech broadcast both in Burkina Faso and France. Sankara’s dashing uniform played an outsized role in how his words were interpreted. Here was Africa’s own Che Guevara. But by October 1987, Sankara was dead, killed during a military coup led by his former friend and ally Blaise Compaoré.
France, the old colonial power, backed Compaoré. Soon after the coup, French officials once again flocked to Ouagadougou, helping to prop up Compaoré for decades.
This potted history is important to understanding the phenomenon of Ibrahim Traoré, Burkina Faso’s current president, an authoritarian head of state who in his charisma and self-presentation so deliberately echoes Sankara.
On September 30, thousands of Burkinabè gathered in Ouagadougou’s Place de la Révolution to hail Traoré on the fourth anniversary of the coup that brought him to power. As the second coming of Sankara, Traoré — whatever their entirely different political ideologies – is arguably the face of contemporary African anti-imperialism. It is a meticulously cultivated image that has almost nothing to do with Traoré’s actual record, or his achievements in Burkina Faso.
Traoré is a pan-African leader for a digital age, an autocrat who has suspended his country’s constitution, dismantled its admittedly fledgling democratic institutions and been accused of crimes against humanity, but who has used artificial intelligence, particularly deepfakes, to bury that record beneath a highly effective cyber cult of personality.
How do Burkinabè reconcile the man with the persona? And is Traoré a triumph of the algorithm, the kind of politician increasingly familiar from Ouagadougou to Delhi, Berlin, Buenos Aires, and of course Washington, DC?
Ibrahim Traoré came to power in September 2022. In his own telling, while Sankara was installed as president, Traoré led the putsch himself. By January 2023, Burkina Faso terminated its military accord with France, giving French special forces one month to leave the country. In June this year, Burkina Faso ended all diplomatic relations with France.
As Traoré turned away from France, he strengthened relations with Moscow. It’s in keeping with the pattern across the countries of the Sahel — Burkina Faso and its neighbours Mali and Niger — as the region’s colonial history with France has been swept clean by a broom held first by the mercenaries of the Wagner Group and latterly the Russian state itself, represented by the Africa Corps.
But in April and May 2026, Africa Corps forces were dealt a humiliating defeat in northern Mali by a combination of Tuareg separatists and allegedly Al-Qaeda linked Islamists. The Malian defence minister was assassinated in a suicide bombing at his home near the capital Bamako. With Russia so involved militarily in the Sahel countries, Ukraine has admitted to assisting rebel forces. Both Mali and Niger have cut diplomatic ties with Kyiv. And Burkina Faso has described Kyiv as a destabilising force in the region, making the Sahel effectively a front in Russia’s war with Ukraine. As recently as September, Traoré named Ukraine as a part of Burkina Faso’s “map of enemies” for which, he added menacingly, “we need to prepare.”
Russia, as Coda Story has reported for years, has used everything from weapons sales to mercenaries to paying African influencers to both spread Russian narratives and hold Moscow up as the alternative to continuing to rely on exploitative economic relationships with the West, particularly erstwhile European colonialists.
Despite the extent of Russian attempts to influence the Sahel, it’s not Moscow that is signing the most consequential deals with the military juntas it helps prop up. It’s Beijing. And the deals being signed with China to mine the region’s extensive mineral wealth — the lithium, gold, copper, zinc, bauxite and uranium — have served as a reminder to the United States that it too should resume stalled relationships in the Sahel. Early in 2026, Burkina Faso signed a near $150 million healthcare deal with the U.S. in exchange, it appeared, for favourable access to minerals. Both Zambia and Zimbabwe backed away from similar deals, expressing concern about U.S. demands for data and minerals that amounted to an infringement of sovereignty.
The deals with China and the United States are being negotiated alongside a drive to reduce reliance on foreign loans and grants and ramp up domestic production, particularly of gold. Traoré claims his economic policies emphasise nationalisation and self-reliance. His government has taken over major mining operations and increased state stakes in other industries. In early 2024, his administration suspended export permits for small-scale gold production to crack down on smuggling and keep mineral wealth inside the country. Last month, he inaugurated Burkina Faso’s first gold refinery.
Some of this has had positive economic effects. The World Bank, in a June 2026 update, said the country had an estimated 5.3% growth in 2025, up from 4.8% in 2024, and its fiscal deficit narrowed from 5.8% of GDP to 1.8%. Inflation was also negative, 0.5%, compared to 4.2% in 2024. Reports by the World Bank and IMF have ascribed these growth to external factors such as the gold rally, climate-driven increase in agricultural outputs, and reduction in energy prices.
Economic growth, though, is part of a larger story that includes a crackdown on the press, particularly critical coverage of alleged human rights violations. Human Rights Watch documented 1,840 civilian deaths between January 2023 and April 2025, over 1,200 of which were directly attributed to government forces. Even as the report acknowledged widespread violations by Islamist groups, the actions of the Burkina Faso military, it said, “amounted to war crimes and crimes against humanity.” At the same time, Traoré has clamped down on Burkinabè civil society, banning over 100 human rights organizations and dissolving all political parties.
None of it appears to have affected his carefully-honed image in certain online spaces.
Traoré is everywhere. In Accra, the capital of Ghana, his image is pasted onto buses and in parks. In January 2025, at the swearing-in of the Ghanaian president John Mahama, it was Traoré who the crowd responded to, cheering for a rockstar rather than a head of state. Even Mahama joked that Traoré had stolen the show. Artwork celebrating Traoré is frequently posted online. The commentary that accompanies the art is gushing. “Through this artwork,” reads one Facebook tribute, “I celebrate the spirit of a man who stands for sovereignty, truth, and the rise of a self-determined Africa.”
Meanwhile, the Ivory Coast government has granted refugee status to at least 69,000 Burkinabè fleeing Burkina Faso.
In May, when I travelled to Ghana and Ivory Coast to talk to people displaced from Burkina Faso, at least five sources decided they no longer wanted to speak. Guaranteeing anonymity didn’t seem to matter. A Burkinabè journalist who was helping me find people to speak to, stopped responding to my messages the day after I arrived in Accra. Those who did speak to me refused to be quoted for fear that harm would come to family and friends left behind in Burkina Faso.
Reporters have been intimidated into silence. “Today, any journalist living in the country is forced to practice self-censorship to avoid being arrested,” says Harouna Simbo Drabo, disinformation analyst and Director of Programs & Partnerships of Faso Check. “Burkinabé journalists have two options,” he told me, “either practice self-censorship or go into exile.” After threats to his life, Drabo has left Burkina Faso.
He’s one of the luckier journalists. Since 2022, at least seven Burkinabè reporters have been forcibly conscripted into the army after criticizing the Traoré junta's crackdown on the press. Guezouma Sanogo, Boukari Ouoba, and Luc Pagbelguem were abducted days after their union denounced state media as "instruments of propaganda." Atiana Serge Oulon, editor-in-chief of L'Événement, is among the disappeared. Many, like Drabo, have either left Burkina Faso or quit their jobs.
As conditions deteriorate, what information is becoming available is government propaganda amplified by social media linked to Russian misinformation. In the absence of accurate, verified information, there is inevitably only disinformation. For instance, one of the most persistent pieces of disinformation is the story that Traoré — a supposedly avowed anti-imperialist despite his kowtowing to Moscow, Beijing and Washington — rejected billions of dollars in International Monetary Fund handouts because he believes, à la Thomas Sankara, in economic self-reliance. It is a story that has been debunked but was repeatedly told to me by Traoré supporters, including at least one journalist.
The claim was cited more than 700 times in a single three-day window in January 2025 alone, racking up millions of views across Facebook, X, and TikTok. Dubawa fact-checked the story and found that rather than rejecting money from the IMF, the Burkina Faso government had negotiated a 48-month IMF loan program in September 2023 and drew on World Bank financing in 2024.
By mid-2025. Code for Africa's analysis found social media in sub-Saharan Africa flooded with AI-generated videos casting Traoré alongside Beyoncé, Rihanna, and, in one particularly unhinged iteration, Pope Leo XIV, all of whom supposedly endorsed him as a Pan-African hero holding the line against the West. After US AFRICOM commander Michael Langley criticized Traoré's handling of Burkina Faso’s gold reserves in a Senate hearing, a network of 165 Facebook accounts began posting identical language claiming Putin had deployed special forces to protect Traoré from an American assasination plot. In ten days it pulled 10.9 million views.
In Accra, I caught a bus with a picture of Traoré emblazoned on the side. The driver, who only identified himself as Kofi, insisted that before we spoke I should tell him what I thought of Traoré. I say I am not Burkinabè, that I have not visited Burkina Faso but that I have spoken to many people whose lives have been upended by Traoré’s strongman politics. I told him about Burkinabè journalists in exile, forced to join the army, or even disappeared. I told him that when asked about a transition to democracy, Traoré said it was important for Burkinabè to “forget” about democracy. “We have to tell the truth,” Traoré said, “democracy isn’t for us.” I told him about the Burkinabè refugees I met in Treichville, a district in Abidjan, the Ivory Coast capital.
Kofi listened and then told me that “good things take sacrifice,” including the death of a free press. When I asked what he meant by good things, he showed me AI-generated videos of a smart city Traoré had supposedly built.
African identity is tightly wound around the belief that the continent has more potential than it has achieved. The deficit can be attributed to a lot of issues, but chiefly to Western exploitation and the complicity of African leaders. “African countries have also fallen into autocratic democracy,” Sanusi Sanusi, Research Analyst at the Digital Tech, AI & Information Disorder Analysis Centre, DAIDAC, tells me. “There is an election every couple of years but it isn't free or fair.”
Neil Postman, in Amusing Ourselves to Death, writes that “disinformation does not mean false information. It means misleading information — misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information — information that creates the illusion of knowing something but which in fact leads one away from knowing.”
Many Traoré supporters I spoke with, most of whom were men, were convinced they knew things I did not. They told me to educate myself more on Western hypocrisy in Africa. They said they did not have faith in those who appointed themselves arbiters of what was fact and what was disinformation. In Lagos I met Lemi Ghariokwu, who designed album covers for the iconic Nigerian musician Fela Kuti, a revolutionary figure. Ghariokwu, who has a portrait of Ibrahim Traoré hanging in his studio, told me that “Western education and propaganda has made our elite class toothless bulldogs.” Listening to them, it seemed as if a successful Africa needed strongmen, needed autocrats.
In Abidjan, the last person I spoke to about Traoré was Oumar, a Burkinabè taxi driver who had moved to the Ivorian capital in 2021. He told me he “supports Traoré with all my heart.” But as we talked, he admitted he had not been back home because “things are only getting worse.” Three Burkinabè refugees I spoke to told me they thought I might be a government agent planted among them to find out what they really thought about Traoré and that I would then report those thoughts back to Ouagadougou.
Many of the Traoré supporters I spoke with thought I was brainwashed by Western media or, worse, too docile to participate in an African revolution. For my part, I thought they were ill-informed and unable or, worse, unwilling to see through propaganda.
The fundamental curse of the age of information and connection is that we rarely confront how the mediums meant to unite us have fractured us. An unprecedented flood of data has shattered shared reality into millions of customized, mutually hostile subcultures.
With the help of AI and social media, Traoré has managed to decouple national and anti-imperial pride from government performance. By the middle of next year, Burkina Faso will no longer be part of the International Criminal Court, denounced by Traoré as an “instrument of neocolonial oppression”, and thus no longer accountable in any international forum. His government has said it is “decolonizing” the school curriculum. Cheered on by social media, Traoré has used anti-imperial grievances and resentments to argue that authoritarian military rule is the only safeguard for sovereignty.
As some Burkinabè exiles told me ironically, they thought both I, so sceptical of Traoré, and the Traoré die-hards in the African diaspora could use a few months living in Burkina Faso. We should, they said, experience the country Traoré has made IRL. See past the carefully curated myth of the man himself, the largely online fantasy of the pan-African, anti-imperial revolutionary who needs to break a few eggs to make the omelet, and assess the country he runs unchallenged.
Olatunji Olaigbe
Adam Shatz
Irina Matchavariani
The post The cyber-fueled cult of Ibrahim Traoré appeared first on Coda Story.
Poland is confronting an unprecedented school security crisis after a succession of violent attacks by young people triggered widespread fear, school closures and a nationwide police mobilisation. By Sunday, 11 October, officers had detained 117 people and conducted nearly 64,000 security checks at educational establishments, as the authorities attempted to contain both genuine threats and an escalating campaign of intimidation on social media.
The crisis reached its height on Friday, 9 October, when warnings circulated about a supposed nationwide killing campaign known as “Bloody Friday”. Videos, threatening messages and lists of potential targets spread through TikTok, messaging platforms and school discussion groups, prompting parents to keep children at home and several local authorities to suspend classroom teaching.
Although police have found no evidence of an organised nationwide conspiracy, the violence that preceded the rumours was real. Three separate attacks took place between 7 and 10 October, while investigators are examining hundreds of other incidents involving threats or suspected criminal activity.
The first major incident occurred on Wednesday, 7 October, at a vocational school in Ostrołęka, north-east of Warsaw. A 19-year-old student armed with a machete attacked pupils, teachers and other people in and around the building, injuring nine victims before harming himself.
Investigators subsequently discovered a homemade explosive device inside his backpack. The suspect was arrested, and prosecutors brought nine charges against him, including attempted murder. The discovery of explosives raised further questions about the extent of his preparations and the possibility of a substantially higher death toll.
The following day, a 15-year-old former pupil entered a primary school in Leszczydół-Nowiny, near Wyszków, and attacked three members of staff with a knife. A 37-year-old caretaker died from her injuries, while two teachers, including the headteacher, were wounded.
According to investigators, the teenager wore a helmet-mounted camera, raising suspicions that he intended to record the assault. The official prosecution statement confirmed the victim’s death and the detention of the suspect.
The attacks were followed by threatening messages from other teenagers, including a video attributed to a 17-year-old in the Przasnysz district who claimed to be participating in a competition involving killings. Police subsequently detained him. In Sierpc, another 17-year-old was arrested after allegedly discussing plans for violence at school; officers discovered two knives.
The rumours produced an immediate reaction. Schools in Wyszków, Ciechanów, Pułtusk and other municipalities cancelled classroom teaching or introduced remote lessons. Elsewhere, parents independently withdrew their children, leaving some classrooms largely empty.
Police launched an extensive preventive operation, deploying additional officers around schools and investigating online threats.
According to the figures released on 11 October, the authorities had recorded 275 incidents requiring investigation, detained 117 people and carried out nearly 64,000 checks at schools, nurseries and other educational facilities.
The situation deteriorated further on Saturday, 10 October, when a 21-year-old student attacked three people at a post-secondary educational institution in Warsaw. Two 17-year-old girls and a 24-year-old woman were injured. One victim required hospital treatment, although none of the injuries was considered life-threatening.
Interior Minister Marcin Kierwiński subsequently stated that investigators had established no links between the recent attacks. The authorities nevertheless remain concerned about imitation offences, particularly where threatening material circulates among teenagers through closed online communities.
The events have also raised questions about whether hostile foreign actors deliberately amplified the crisis. Tomasz Siemoniak, Poland’s minister responsible for coordinating the intelligence services, warned that Russian organisations routinely exploit domestic emergencies to spread disinformation and undermine confidence in public institutions.
In his statement on 9 October, Siemoniak acknowledged the possibility of foreign involvement but stressed the need for evidence before assigning responsibility.
There is, at present, no publicly established evidence that Moscow organised the school attacks or directed the subsequent threats. Nevertheless, the rapid circulation of alarming videos, fabricated warnings and unverified target lists illustrates how genuine violent incidents can be exploited to disrupt everyday life without further physical attacks.
The episode also presents a challenge for European regulators. Poland is examining measures against dangerous online content, while its existing obligations under the EU Digital Services Act provide a framework for addressing systemic risks associated with major platforms.
For Donald Tusk’s government, the immediate priority is preventing further attacks as schools reopen under heightened security. The longer-term challenge concerns the interaction between online radicalisation, copycat violence and disinformation capable of transforming isolated crimes into a national emergency.
Un mur de Nanterre, le 29 juin dernier. Des lettres violettes inscrites à la bombe. « Sans vidéo Nahel serait une statistique pour la Place Beauvau. Fuck le 17 ». Deux jours auparavant, Nahel Merzouk, 17 ans, avait trouvé la mort au volant d'une voiture, après qu'un agent lui eut tiré en pleine poitrine, à bout portant. Des images tournées par une passante et diffusées sur les réseaux sociaux le jour même ont remis en cause la version policière reprise dans les premiers articles sur le drame. Le 27 juin à 8 h 22, le compte rendu du centre de commandement consignait : « Individu blessé par balle à la poitrine gauche. Le fonctionnaire de police s'est mis à l'avant pour le stopper. Le conducteur a essayé de repartir en fonçant sur le fonctionnaire. » Or la séquence filmée montre le motard ouvrant le feu depuis le côté d'un véhicule qui redémarre lentement.
Sans image, que se serait-il passé ? « S'il n'y avait pas eu la vidéo, s'est interrogée la jeune femme qui l'a postée, une collègue de son auteure, quelle aurait été la suite (1) ? » Plusieurs médias ont comparé l'émotion suscitée par la mort de Nahel Merzouk à la relative indifférence dans laquelle, deux semaines plus tôt, Alhoussein Camara était décédé d'une balle dans le thorax à Saint-Yrieix-sur-Charente, dans la banlieue d'Angoulême. Lors d'un contrôle de police sur la route de son travail, ce jeune homme de 19 ans aurait refusé d'obtempérer et heurté les jambes d'un agent avec sa voiture. Un ami d'enfance témoignait, interdit : « Je sais tellement qu'il n'a pas pu blesser ce policier, mais comment le prouver sans vidéo (2)… »
Les images, en réalité, ne suffisent pas toujours. Du moins à obtenir justice. En 1991, Rodney King, un Afro-Américain de 25 ans, est passé à tabac par quatre policiers à Los Angeles. Avec une petite caméra portative, un riverain capte la scène. Son enregistrement et sa diffusion provoquent l'indignation. La vidéo devient dès lors un outil de preuve, un moyen de scandaliser et de mobiliser, mais aussi d'engager des poursuites judiciaires. L'affaire n'aurait sans doute jamais conduit à un procès sans cette captation, et sans son passage en boucle sur Cable News Network (CNN) : même s'ils ne permettront pas de faire condamner les responsables — les policiers sont acquittés un an plus tard —, ils cristallisent une colère qui conduira aux plus grandes émeutes qu'ait connues Los Angeles.
Dans les années 1960, des collectifs avaient déjà utilisé des caméras comme instrument de surveillance de la police (copwatching). Une coalition d'organisations noires les expérimenta dans le quartier de Watts à Los Angeles à la suite de nombreux meurtres policiers, suivie à Oakland par le Black Panther Party à partir de 1966. Act Up se dota aussi d'un groupe de vidéastes dans les années 1980, dont un des buts était de filmer les manifestations pour prévenir les violences policières. Catherine Gund Saalfield, l'une des fondatrices de Damned Interfering Video Activist Television (DIVA TV), expliquait alors : « Nous avons une banque d'images de flics pliant les poignets des gens jusqu'au point de rupture, de flics matraquant des manifestants sur le dos et les épaules (3). »
À la différence des tenants du cinéma d'intervention — les groupes Medvedkine, par exemple — ou de la télévision alternative, DIVA TV ne cherchait plus seulement à donner la parole aux sans-voix ou à faire exister des corps exclus de la visibilité. La caméra devait servir d'outil dans la lutte, les vidéos de preuve. Mais ce copwatching relevait encore de la pratique politique, de la longue histoire des expériences audiovisuelles militantes. Au cours de la période récente, dans les cas des homicides de George Floyd aux États-Unis ou de Cédric Chouviat en France en 2020, ce sont des voisins ou des passants qui ont filmé la scène ; des caméras de vidéosurveillance ont capté l'arrestation violente de Théo Luhaka à Aulnay-sous-Bois en 2017 ou les coups assenés au producteur de musique Michel Zecler (en 2020 également) ; et, aux États-Unis, où leur emploi est quasi systématique, certaines vidéos de violences proviennent des caméras corporelles de policiers.
Pour les activistes d'aujourd'hui, l'Observatoire national des pratiques et des violences policières (ONVP) ou David Dufresne et sa plate-forme « Allô Place Beauvau », le partage apparaît plus déterminant que l'enregistrement. Et il faudra s'en remettre aux acteurs judiciaires et médiatiques, dont le rôle devient décisif. Or, du journal télévisé au procès, faire parler l'image implique une série de procédés tant techniques que rhétoriques. La parole de l'expert ou du témoin la décrit, la commente ou la met en contexte. À la télévision, les vidéos subissent des modifications matérielles. Des inserts graphiques dirigent le regard vers ce qui devrait être vu, quand le ralenti « peut amener les téléspectateurs à percevoir une action comme plus intentionnelle (4) », le ralentissement induisant le sentiment que l'auteur des faits a eu le temps de penser son action. Il en va de même lors des procès, où les captures d'écran, parfois imprimées et annotées, se substituent à la projection, comme, en France, dans l'affaire Gaye Camara en 2019 (5).
Reste que les effets sociaux des images inquiètent les autorités et agacent les forces de l'ordre. Face à la multiplication des entraves policières à la liberté de filmer, notamment lors des manifestations, le ministère de l'intérieur avait dû rappeler à ses troupes par la voie d'une circulaire datée du 23 décembre 2008 que « les policiers ne bénéficient pas de protection particulière en matière de droit à l'image (…). La liberté de l'information, qu'elle soit le fait de la presse ou d'un simple particulier, prime le droit au respect de l'image ou de la vie privée dès lors que cette liberté n'est pas dévoyée par une atteinte à la dignité de la personne ou au secret de l'enquête ou de l'instruction ».
Malgré cela, en septembre 2019, un jeune « gilet jaune » dijonnais a été condamné à cinq mois de prison avec sursis pour avoir filmé et mis en ligne les images d'affrontements entre des manifestants et des gendarmes. Une décision rendue sur le fondement d'un article du code pénal introduit en 2007 pour sanctionner le happy slapping (ou « vidéo baffe », une agression captée puis diffusée sur les réseaux sociaux). La majorité de M. Emmanuel Macron a ensuite tenté d'entraver la circulation des vidéos de violences policières. Finalement écarté par le Conseil constitutionnel, l'article 24 de la proposition de loi relative à la sécurité globale visait à punir de cinq ans d'emprisonnement la diffusion d'images d'un agent portant « atteinte à son intégrité physique ou psychique ».
La loi promulguée en 2021 a quand même autorisé les policiers à exploiter en temps réel des caméras installées dans les halls d'immeuble ou l'extension de l'accès à la vidéosurveillance aux agents des polices municipales et de la Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF). Face à la multiplication des dispositifs d'enregistrement au sein de la population, il s'agit de construire des contre-feux. « Quand on est attaqué par l'image, il faut se défendre par l'image (6) », soutient M. David Le Bars, secrétaire général du Syndicat des commissaires de la police nationale (SCPN).
Cette volonté d'opposer œil pour œil les caméras-piétons et de vidéosurveillance à celles des citoyens comme celle d'empêcher la circulation de certaines images trahissent la foi des gouvernants dans leur capacité à sensibiliser ou à révéler la répression au plus grand nombre. Cette foi se double d'une croyance dans la puissance mimétique qui conduirait des individus généralement jeunes, peu diplômés, de classes populaires à s'égarer dans la violence pour reproduire ce qu'ils ont vu. À ce titre, le président de la République a souligné le 30 juin dernier, dans une allocution depuis la cellule interministérielle de crise, le « rôle considérable » de Snapchat et TikTok dans les soulèvements des quartiers populaires qui ont suivi la mort de Nahel Merzouk, et dénoncé la diffusion d'images des violences commises dans de très nombreuses villes françaises.
Face à la censure des médias audiovisuels, les plates-formes numériques ont permis au cours des années 2010 de diffuser assez librement des enregistrements. Mais ces entreprises, actrices majeures du capitalisme, n'ont pas vocation à soutenir les révoltes. À l'Assemblée nationale le 10 juillet, la responsable des affaires publiques de Snapchat en France a assuré que son entreprise avait « travaillé conjointement avec le ministère de l'intérieur et les différentes autorités afin d'endiguer le plus rapidement possible les différents dérapages qu'on a pu percevoir sur le terrain ». Avant de se féliciter du résultat de cette collaboration en constatant que « l'ensemble des stories qui étaient publiées » aux derniers soirs du soulèvement provenaient d'utilisateurs « qui se plaignaient justement des émeutes et des conséquences des émeutes ».
Le matin du même jour, le commissaire européen au marché intérieur avait averti de la fin de la fête. Déplorant que les réseaux sociaux n'aient pas préalablement censuré tout message susceptible d'accentuer les émeutes, M. Thierry Breton a prévenu : « Tout cela ne sera plus possible à partir du 25 août », en vertu d'un nouveau règlement sur les services numériques. « Lorsqu'il y aura des contenus haineux, des contenus qui appellent par exemple à la révolte, qui appellent également à tuer ou à brûler des voitures, [les plates-formes] auront l'obligation dans l'instant de les effacer. Si elles ne le font pas, elles seront immédiatement sanctionnées », voire temporairement interdites. Le temps de la désillusion pour les militants qui, depuis le « printemps arabe », associaient réseaux sociaux et liberté ? « Sans les images la révolution n'aurait pas eu lieu », nous disait un Tunisien en 2011… Sans les images ou sans les moyens pour les diffuser ?
(1) « Mort de Nahel : la femme qui a posté la vidéo du tir du policier dit avoir “fait son devoir'' », BFM, 8 juillet 2023.
(2) Cité par David Perrotin, « “Pourquoi personne n'en parle ?” : 15 jours avant Nahel, Alhoussein, 19 ans, a été tué par la police à Angoulême », Mediapart, 30 juin 2023.
(3) Catherine Saalfield, « On the make : Activist video collectives » (PDF), dans Martha Gever, John Greyson et Pratibha Parmar (sous la dir. de), Queer Looks. Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Film and Video, Routledge, Londres et New York, 1993.
(4) Cf. Zachary Burns, Eugene Caruso et Benjamin Converse, « Slow motion increases perceived intent », Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 113, Washington, DC, 2016.
(5) Cf. Nicolas Chapuis, « Les tirs de légitime défense par les policiers, une zone grise pour les enquêteurs », Le Monde, 24 octobre 2019.
(6) Cité par Chloé Pilorget-Rezzouk, « Les caméras-piétons, une fausse bonne idée ? », Libération, Paris, 15 juillet 2020.
Login