Kenya's youth vs the IMF, round two

A 17-minute phone call might be the reason Thailand's prime minister resigns, Brazil says it is doubling down on tech accountability, but that may have negative effects on free speech, and Kenya's youth is protesting against the IMF and President Ruto again. Plus, a mysterious and very famous Moroccan singer, a Kurdish superstar, an Algerian answer to Albert Camus "The Stranger", if Studio Ghibli was a person, this (scroll down) would be her, a new newsletter dedicated only to good news that's in beta mode and for you to sign up for free (the first issue will be out on July 1!), and so much more.

A 17-minute phone call might be the reason Thailand's prime minister resigns

What happened last week:
About 17,000 people protested in Bangkok, calling on Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra to step down. Why? A phone call between her and former Cambodian leader Hun Sen got leaked, and people were not happy about what she said.

Why this matters:
This call kicked off a full-blown political crisis: the biggest protest since her party took power in 2023, one of her top allies quit, she's facing an ethics investigation, a no-confidence vote and now, there's also serious talk of yet another military coup.

Tell me more:
This all started after a Cambodian soldier died during a clash at the Thai-Cambodian border on May 28, making things very tense between the two countries. Thailand's PM, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, had a private phone call with Cambodia's former PM Hun Sen (he's basically still in charge), in which she tried to smooth things over. Which, sort of, worked, but then the call got leaked, possibly by Hun Sen himself or one of the 80 officials he shared the recording with.

What did she say in that call?
In the leaked call, Paetongtarn was super polite, maybe too polite. She called Hun Sen "uncle" and said the Thai military commander at the border was her "opponent." Many Thais thought she sounded weak and like she was taking Cambodia's side. She later apologized for the comments, but defended the call as a "negotiation technique." She later apologized but claimed it was just "negotiation strategy." That didn't land well, and protests broke out. So far, they've stayed peaceful.

Background:
Cambodia and Thailand have had a rocky relationship for over 100 years, mostly because they both want control over a piece of land where an old and important temple, Preah Vihear, is located. In 1962, the International Court of Justice said the temple belongs to Cambodia, which still bothers Thailand. In 2013, the court repeated its decision. Since then, both countries have restricted each other's trade, goods, and even pop culture. Despite all that, the powerful families running both countries, the Shinawatras in Thailand and the Huns in Cambodia, have stayed close. In fact, Paetongtarn's dad and Hun Sen call each other "godbrothers."

What do the protesters want?
Simple: "Ung Ing, get out." (That's Paetongtarn's nickname.) Protesters say she's unfit, and that Hun Sen (and her dad) are pulling the strings. She promised not to speak with Hun Sen again, but many don't buy it.

How's the fallout?
Bad. Her main coalition partner, the Bhumjaithai Party, ditched her. Her government now has only 255 out of 500 seats (a razor-thin majority). She's under investigation for an ethics breach, and the Constitutional Court could suspend her this week.

But is this really about the call?
Yes and no. The leaked call is the spark, but the real issue is the Shinawatras. Many want to end the family's influence on Thai politics. Paetongtarn is the daughter of exiled Prime Minister Thaksin and niece of ex-Prime Minister Yingluck (both ousted). She's been in office 10 months and is Thailand's second female prime minister (after her aunt). The protest movement is backed by conservative, royalist groups with a history of toppling Shinawatra governments (2006, 2014, you get the idea).

Is a coup coming?
Maybe. And if it happens, no one would be surprised. Thailand's had 13 coups (and 22 attempts) since the 1930s. The military's been rebuilding power since 2023. They see Prime Minister Paetongtarn as weak, too tied to her dad, and too soft on Cambodia. Nationalist protest groups (the same ones active before past coups) are back in full force, questioning her patriotism. And here's the pattern: both the 2006 and 2014 coups followed this exact formula. Shinawatra in power, Cambodia dispute, protests, then military "rescue." Now the army's hinting that civilian leadership can't handle the crisis. And the current king, who's more politically active than his father, might back a coup if it helps crush the Shinawatra dynasty for good. Bottom line: the mood, the players, and the playbook all look very familiar.

What's next?
On Tuesday, the Constitutional Court will decide whether to go after Paetongtarn over that leaked call. If they do, she actually could be suspended. (And for the record: Thailand's top court isn't exactly neutral. Her party's last PM was removed, too. The court often helps the royalists push out their opponents.)

Meanwhile, her support's in free fall (only 9.2% back her now), and a recent poll shows the opposition leader, Natthaphong Ruengpanyawut, is way ahead as Thailand's preferred PM. The writing's on the wall. Tuesday could be make-or-break.

Brazil says it is doubling down on tech accountability, but that may have negative effects on free speech

What happened:
On June 27, 2025, Brazil's Supreme Court voted 8-3 on a new law that makes platforms like Google, Meta (Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp), TikTok, and X legally responsible for what their users post.

Why this matters:
Brazil is a huge market for social media. Millions of people use it every day. There are 144 million YouTube users, 140 million on Instagram, 112 million on Facebook, and over 145 million use WhatsApp (the country's favorite app). With the new court ruling, Brazil is now set to have some of the toughest rules in the world for how social media platforms are allowed to operate.

Tell me more:
Key rules include:

• Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube now have to watch for and remove illegal content (like hate speech, fake videos, racism, or anything that threatens democracy) after users report it. Before, they only had to act if a judge told them to. Now, a report from a user is enough. The court didn't clearly say what counts as "illegal content", so these decisions will be made case by case.
• If platforms don't take down harmful posts fast enough, people can sue them directly.
• The only way for platforms to avoid getting into legal trouble is to prove they removed the content quickly after it was reported.

Is it now in effect?
Not yet, but it will be soon. The decision still has to be officially published in the court's records. That should happen in the next few weeks. Once it's published, the new rules kick in, and platforms will have to follow them. If they don't, they could be sued or face big fines.

What did the opposing judges say?
One of the judges who disagreed, Justice Nunes Marques, said: Look, if someone posts something illegal, that's their responsibility, not the platform's. And it's not our job as judges to make new rules, that's Congress's job. But most of the other judges felt the old law wasn't doing enough to protect people's rights or democracy. So they said stepping in was necessary.

What does it mean?
As a famous journalist saying goes, "it depends."

For Big Tech, this means 'ok, sh*t. We're now responsible for what our users post. Up the moderation.' "The court's decision also introduced the concept of systemic failure," says Patricia Peck Pinheiro, a specialist in digital law and member of the National Data Protection Commission of Brazil's National Council of Justice. Meaning, platforms must now create their own rules for what's allowed, be open about how they enforce those rules, and follow standardized practices. The tech companies say this turns them into internet police, and that's dangerous because it could hurt free speech, privacy, and many (small) businesses in Brazil, which rely on their apps.

For users:
You now have the right to sue a platform directly in Brazil if they leave harmful or illegal content up after you report it.

For free speech, this potentially means nothing good. Perhaps platforms then over-remove content to just be on the safe side and avoid liability. For example, they could be taking down political posts, reports of corruption, or human rights content that might be controversial, even if it's not illegal. That's the "gray area" people like Ronaldo Lemos are worried about. Lemos is the co-founder and chief science officer at the Institute for Technology and Society of Rio de Janeiro.

For the relationship between Brazil and the U.S., this is potentially a big diplomatic storm. U.S. companies dominate Brazil's tech space, and if Brazil punishes platforms (most are U.S.-based), things might get ugly. Last month, the Trump administration said the U.S. would punish foreign leaders who go after U.S. tech firms.

• Btw, it's happened before, too. Back in February, Rumble (online video platform popular among conservative and far-right users) and Trump Media...