It’s French but has a weird legal status where the citizens are French and therefore have an EU passport and vote in EU elections, but it is not part of the EU and Schengen from what I understand.

Anyway technicalities aside, France generally doesn’t care much for its overseas territories. Quality of living varies wildly from territory to territory and there’s still ongoing mid 20th century style colonial oppression in places like Nouvelle-Calédonie.

So while a Falklands type situation is quite possible if anyone tries to invade an overseas French territory, it’s doubtful that France would risk actual nuclear war over one. Especially Saint Pierre and Miquelon which does not have a strategic military value as far as I can tell, unlike other territories which serve as force projection multipliers and have naval bases, especially for the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier and the nuclear deterrence submarines. Without those France wouldn’t be able to operate in the Pacific theater.

The French nuclear umbrella being extended to other EU states is still only a suggestion (though even as just a suggestion it is a very strong political message). What that would mean for French nuclear doctrine in practice is yet unclear. Would France nuke Russian troops/infrastructure/cities and risk all-out nuclear war to protect Romania? Moldova?

Funnily enough the entire reason why France has an independent Nuclear program at all is De Gaulle did not trust the US to risk New York being glassed in order to save Paris from a Russian invasion. Which was probably correct. Unfortunately, the reverse logic also applies and France will not risk Paris being glassed to save Toronto. The only reason why a sovereign European nuclear umbrella makes sense on paper is that an attack on any EU member state hits close enough to home as to arguably be existentially threatening, unlike a war an ocean away.

Unless you meant France selling nukes, but that would violate every nonproliferation treaty out there and just be a complete mess that even with a sane US administration would lead to a complete diplomatic meltdown. The current suicide cult at the helm would probably actually start a nuclear war for less than that.

Is this considered porn? I am certainly, along with at least hundreds of millions of people, into shirtless Ryan Gosling. Specifically his pecs and abs.

Look, I am taking the piss, but not everything that might turn someone on for one reason or another is porn. The AI video of Trump is clearly satire and meant to disgust. What’s next, we can’t make satirical drawings of him grovelling at Putin’s feet because some people have a humiliation fetish?

There’s plenty of legal precedent for newsworthiness to supersede some rules in the name of the freedom of the Press. It makes sense that I’m not allowed (at least where I live) to post a non-consensual pictures of someone off the street. But it would not make sense if I was forbidden from posting a picture of the Prime Minister visiting a school for example. That’s newsworthy and therefore the public interest outweighs his right to privacy.

The AI video of Trump/Musk made a bunch of headlines because it was hacked onto a government building. On top of that it’s satire of public figures and – I can’t believe that needs saying – is clearly not meant to provide sexual gratification.

Corpos and bureaucracies would have you believe nuance doesn’t belong in moderation decisions, but that’s a fallacy and an flimsy shield to hide behind to justify making absolutely terrible braindead decisions at best, and political instrumentation of rules at worst. We should celebrate any time when moderators are given latitude to not stick to dumb rules (as long as this latitude is not being used for evil), and shame any company that censors legitimate satire of the elites based on bullshit rules meant to protect the little people.