tellumore.com

  • Who Created PIX and How It Revolutionized Payments in Brazil

    The Creation of PIX

    PIX was created by the Central Bank of Brazil to modernize and simplify the country’s payment system. Development began in 2018, and the system was officially launched in November 2020. The initiative aimed to offer a fast, secure solution available 24/7, unlike traditional methods like TED, DOC, and cards.

    Who Was the Creator

    Although PIX is an initiative of the Central Bank, its development involved various internal technical teams and specialized fintech consultants. The then president of the Central Bank, Roberto Campos Neto, was one of the main supporters and drivers of the project, aiming to transform Brazil’s financial system and encourage digital innovation.

    How PIX Works

    PIX allows instant transfers and payments at any time of day, processing transactions in seconds. It is accessible through banking apps using PIX keys — such as CPF (tax ID), email, phone number, or a random key — to identify accounts, simplifying daily financial operations.

    Revolution in Payment Methods

    Before PIX, Brazilians depended on methods like TED and DOC, which only works during business hours and often charges fees. PIX removed these barriers by enabling instant, free transfers for individuals, increasing financial inclusion. Additionally, PIX introduced innovations such as installment payments, contactless payments, and integration with billing systems.

    Social and Economic Impact

    PIX significantly changed consumer and merchant behavior, facilitating e-commerce, bill payments, and even donations. The system’s speed and convenience encouraged the formalization of small businesses and expanded access to financial services for population segments previously excluded from the traditional banking system.

    References

  • Canada Responds to Trump’s Tariffs and Flirts with BRICS

    Pixabay

    The trade dispute between Canada and the U.S. is no longer just about money — it is starting to shape new alliances. With increasingly tough tariffs, especially on lumber and steel, Canada is responding with domestic measures and seeking new partners, such as BRICS. The question is: are we witnessing a historic repositioning of the country?

    Ottawa’s Immediate Response

    In recent weeks, the Canadian government announced a package of up to 1.2 billion Canadian dollars to support the lumber industry, which has been hit hard by tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. The goal is to prevent job losses and maintain competitiveness in the global market, even with the extra weight of American tariffs.

    Market Diversification

    Canadian companies have accelerated their search for new trade partners, increasing exports to countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This diversification strategy aims to reduce the country’s historical dependence on the U.S. market, which still accounts for a significant share of Canada’s foreign trade.

    Interest in BRICS

    BRICS — formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and now expanded to include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others — has emerged as an alternative route. With growing economies and increasingly robust trade agreements, the bloc offers Canada the chance to expand its global reach while reducing vulnerability to Washington’s decisions.

    Pragmatism Over Ideology

    Analysts stress that Canada’s approach to BRICS does not signify an ideological break with the U.S., but rather a pragmatic stance. Ottawa wants more strategic options at the negotiating table and does not wish to be dependent on a single partner, especially in times of political and trade uncertainty.

    References:

  • Canada and BRICS: A New Perspective on Global Relations

    Pixabay

    BRICS and Its Expansion

    BRICS, originally formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, has been expanding to include countries like Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This expansion reflects growing dissatisfaction with the Western-dominated economic order and a search for alternatives that offer greater autonomy and influence on the international stage.

    Canada’s Role in Global Relations

    Canada, traditionally an ally of the United States and a G7 member, has faced challenges in its trade relations with the U.S., especially after high tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump. These developments have led Canada to reconsider its alliances and explore new strategic partnerships.

    Canada’s Interest in BRICS

    Although there is no official confirmation that Canada has applied to join BRICS, there is speculation about a possible interest in strengthening ties with the bloc. Growing tensions with the U.S. and the desire for economic diversification may motivate Canada to consider BRICS as a viable alternative to strengthen its position in global trade.

    Implications for Canadian Trade and Foreign Policy

    Closer ties with BRICS could offer Canada access to new markets and investment opportunities. However, questions arise about democratic values and human rights, especially concerning some BRICS members. Canada would need to balance its economic interests with its ethical and political commitments when considering deeper collaboration with the bloc.

    References

  • Monetizing Children: When ‘Views’ Become Child Labor

    Pixabay

    The era of the family spectacle

    In recent years, millions of families have started documenting children in videos and live streams that generate views, followers, and income. The phenomenon — known by researchers as sharenting or kidfluencing — turns intimate routines into content measured by metrics and algorithms, often without safeguards for privacy, emotional development, or fair compensation for minors.

    When play turns into a script and exposure

    The problem is not just cute videos: reports and studies show children pressured to perform, daily routines filmed almost without pause, and scenes that expose them to aggressive comments, harassment, and security risks. Psychologists warn of impacts on identity, self-esteem, and consent — often compromised when the “yes” comes only from a legal guardian.

    Parents, audience, and the attention economy

    For many parents, creating content has become a source of income or a business. Brands and platforms monetize reach; algorithms reward emotional and repeatable content — and children become the means, not the end. This dynamic strongly incentivizes maximum exposure, even at the expense of rights and well-being.

    Legislation in motion — examples and gaps

    Some governments have already responded: U.S. states like Illinois have passed laws requiring financial protections and applying rules similar to those for child actors. Similar proposals are emerging elsewhere, such as in New York, with advocates calling for deletion rights and trust accounts to ensure children receive a share of the profits. Still, legal coverage remains uneven, leaving significant protection gaps.

    Documented consequences — cases raising alarms

    Recent cases show that online fame can hide abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation — when the pursuit of audience justifies potentially harmful practices. Young people who grew up under constant filming report loss of autonomy and trauma linked to an image that remains permanently online.

    What international organizations recommend

    Agencies such as UNICEF and UN bodies call for integrated policies: limiting commercial exposure, offering tools to remove content, educating parents, and creating legal frameworks that reconcile child protection with family freedom. Recommendations include protection from violence, preservation of privacy, and safeguarding of children’s economic rights.

    How judges and lawmakers can act — practical proposals

    1. Recognize child-related content as protected labor: apply rules similar to those in entertainment — time limits, legal supervision, and ensuring part of the income goes into a trust fund.
    2. Right to removal and correction: allow children, upon reaching legal age, to request the deletion of seriously invasive content.
    3. Mandatory financial transparency: require accounting and fair revenue sharing.
    4. Digital monitoring and parental education: empower child protection agencies to monitor practices and educate families about risks and consent.

    Rethinking the value of childhood

    This is not about banning families from sharing memories, but preventing the pursuit of clicks from turning childhood into a product. Clear rules can balance family freedom, economic protection, and the right of every child to grow up free from exploitation.

    References

  • Swamp, Crocodiles, and Suffering: The New Immigrant Prison.

    Swamp, Crocodiles, and Suffering: The New Immigrant Prison. “Hell has no bars, but crocodiles do.”

    Freepikwirestock

    “They have no way to wash themselves, no way to rinse their mouths, the toilets overflow, and the floor is flooded with urine and feces.”
    “They eat once a day and have two minutes to eat. The meals have worms.”
    — The Washington Post, CBS News, NBC4 Washington

    Built in the heart of the Florida swamps, the immigrant detention center nicknamed Alligator Alcatraz is an extreme symbol of Donald Trump’s immigration policies. The facility was constructed in just eight days on an old airport runway in the middle of the Big Cypress environmental reserve, a region infested with crocodiles, mosquitoes, and mud. There, thousands of irregular migrants were thrown into a hostile environment, lacking even the most basic dignity.

    The natural cell: crocodiles as guards

    There are no high walls or visible watchtowers. Nature itself is used as a trap: crocodiles, snakes, and marshes hinder any escape attempts. The location is isolated and practically inaccessible. For many, it is an open-air prison surrounded by wild threats — a deliberate choice, critics say, to make suffering part of the punishment.

    “I had a Canadian passport, lawyers, money, media attention… and yet I was detained for almost two weeks.” |
    Even with all possible resources, the system didn’t care. They kept me detained without clear justification. I was only released after my story went viral in the press. I felt powerless and invisible.
    Reference: Reddit – case discussion
    https://www.reddit.com/r/Longreads/comments/1jf1rui

    A prison built in haste — and without mercy

    In June 2025, the prison was announced. Days later, metal barracks were already erected. The planned capacity was 5,000 detainees. The reality began with 3,000. Scarce drinking water, extreme heat, relentless mosquitoes, and lack of basic sanitation define daily life for those inside — most of whom have committed no crimes, only seeking a better life.

    “We were all sick, full of bites, and thirsty”

    Detainees’ accounts describe the environment as “unbearable.” A 15-year-old Mexican teenager was detained with adults for several days until his age was finally recognized. He was weak, sick, and traumatized. Others report water rationing, poor-quality food, and denied medical care. Some fainted from heat or spent days without access to basic medication.

    Denied access to lawyers and lawmakers

    Organizations like the ACLU report detainees are prevented from receiving legal visits. Not even elected members of Congress have been allowed to inspect the facility. “It’s a policy of terror and isolation. The intention is clear: to dehumanize immigrants,” said a representative of the organization.

    Indigenous protests and environmental threats ignored

    The prison was built on sacred land of the Miccosukee and Seminole indigenous communities. They were not consulted. Environmentalists also warn the construction destroys part of the Everglades ecosystem, threatening species and the region’s natural balance. Yet the building proceeded without environmental impact assessments.

    Mexico denounces human rights violations

    The Mexican government demanded the repatriation of its citizens detained at Alligator Alcatraz, especially after learning of the teenager’s detention. “It is an affront to the most basic rights. Even in times of war, this kind of facility is unjustifiable,” declared President Claudia Sheinbaum.

    Who pays for this barbarism?

    The prison costs over US$400 per detainee per day — funds coming from emergency budgets, FEMA, and the Department of Homeland Security. Meanwhile, thousands of families remain unaware of their relatives’ whereabouts. There is no transparency, no compassion.

    References:

  • Brazil–US Crisis: Sanctions and Sovereignty

    Donald Trump has increased pressure on Brazil. With new tariffs and sanctions against Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the crisis has deepened. Both the public and the government are now asking: why is the U.S. waging a battle against Brazil’s sovereignty?

    The Bolsonaro Case and Foreign Interference

    The crisis began with the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro, accused of attempting a coup after the 2022 elections. Trump, a close ally of Bolsonaro, criticized the trial and called it a “witch hunt.” In response, the U.S. sanctioned Alexandre de Moraes, accusing him of abuse of power and human rights violations.

    Tariffs and Their Impact on Brazil’s Economy

    In addition to sanctions against Moraes, the U.S. raised tariffs by 50% on key Brazilian exports like coffee and beef. This could hurt nearly 36% of Brazil’s exports to the U.S., leading to major economic losses.

    How Economic Persecution Can Cripple Nations

    U.S.-driven sanctions and punishments can severely damage countries like Brazil. These actions restrict international trade, discourage foreign investment, and raise the cost of imports and exports. The result is lower production, rising unemployment, and higher prices. Ultimately, it’s ordinary people who suffer — paying the price for political decisions beyond their control.

    Sanctions May Lead to Rising Unemployment and Poverty

    As the economy weakens due to sanctions, businesses often shut down or lay off workers. Unemployment rises, and more people are left without income. With less money circulating, poverty spreads, and families struggle to cover basic needs like food, housing, and healthcare.

    Brazil’s Response

    The Brazilian government has called the sanctions a clear interference in national sovereignty. Leaders, including those from the Supreme Court, have defended Alexandre de Moraes, insisting that the Brazilian justice system must remain independent and free from foreign pressure.

    The Road Ahead

    While Brazil seeks international support and considers its next steps, the population is already feeling the effects of U.S. sanctions. The government must act quickly to protect the nation’s interests and reduce the impact on its citizens.

    A Power Struggle Over Sovereignty

    Donald Trump has launched a serious power struggle against Brazil’s sovereignty. By imposing sanctions and interfering in internal decisions, the former U.S. president has turned political disagreements into a global power conflict. With its economy already under strain, Brazil now faces pressure from a superpower determined to assert its will — using trade, diplomacy, and even financial systems as weapons.

    References

  • US Sanctions Alexandre de Moraes under the Global Magnitsky Act

    A law against tyrants… applied to a Supreme Court justice?

    The Global Magnitsky Act is a U.S. law created to punish foreign individuals accused of systematic corruption or severe human rights violations. Inspired by the case of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky — who died in 2009 after exposing a major corruption scheme involving Russian officials — the law allows the U.S. government to impose unilateral sanctions on any person abroad involved in actions such as:

    • Arbitrary arrests
    • Torture and political repression
    • Censorship of free speech
    • Embezzlement of public funds or illicit enrichment

    The global version of the act, passed in 2016, turned it into a powerful tool of punitive diplomacy, used against dictators, business leaders, and even members of the judiciary. Sanctions may include:

    • Asset freezes in the U.S. or in any dollar-denominated transactions
    • Entry bans to the United States
    • Prohibition of financial dealings with American companies or individuals
    • Global reputational damage, as many countries and private institutions informally follow the list

    Alexandre de Moraes: The Judge Targeted by the American Empire

    In July 2025, the United States officially added Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) Justice Alexandre de Moraes to the Global Magnitsky sanctions list. The order, signed by President Donald Trump, alleges that Moraes was involved in:

    • Unlawful arrests of political opponents
    • Systematic censorship of the press and social media
    • Politically motivated prosecutions, especially targeting former President Jair Bolsonaro, an ally of Trump

    According to the U.S. Treasury Department, Moraes “abused his authority to persecute political opponents and suppress civil liberties in Brazil.” The administration further accused him of acting as both “judge and executioner” in a “campaign of political persecution.”

    This marks the first time a Supreme Court justice from a consolidated democracy has been added to the Magnitsky list — previously applied mostly to figures from authoritarian regimes like Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela.

    What Do the Sanctions Mean in Practice?

    Although Moraes does not appear to have publicly known assets in the U.S., the law’s enforcement has immediate and serious consequences:

    • Any dollar-linked asset in his name can be frozen by international banks
    • He is banned from entering the U.S. or obtaining any type of U.S. visa
    • American tech companies like Google, Apple, and Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp) may face pressure to suspend his personal accounts
    • Brazilian financial institutions dealing in U.S. dollars are reassessing contracts to avoid secondary sanctions — Bradesco, for example, has already called in its compliance team to review the case

    Even without arrest or direct action, the sanctions effectively isolate Moraes from the Western financial and diplomatic system — a form of “international civil death.”

    Why Did Trump Do It?

    According to international analysts, Trump’s motivations are clear:

    • Strengthening political support for Bolsonaro, who was declared ineligible for office by Moraes after coup attempt investigations in 2022
    • Accusing the Brazilian judiciary of bias, echoing Trump’s own narrative about a “deep state” and politicized justice system
    • Sending a message to his voter base by showing strength against ideological opponents — even abroad

    By sanctioning Moraes, Trump also seeks to reshape his international image as a defender of free speech and political dissent — as long as it’s against his rivals.

    How Did Brazil Respond?

    Yes — Brazil responded firmly. The Brazilian government condemned the move as a serious external interference in national sovereignty. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement saying, “No Brazilian authority is above Brazilian law — but neither are they subject to foreign governments.” President Lula expressed full support for the Supreme Court and declared that Brazil would not accept unilateral political sanctions against its judicial members.

    Still, the episode has worsened diplomatic tensions between Brazil and the U.S. — and opened a dangerous precedent: the use of judicial sanctions as a tool of geopolitical pressure between democracies.

    In Summary

    The inclusion of Alexandre de Moraes on the Global Magnitsky sanctions list marks an unprecedented and explosive moment in Brazil–U.S. relations. Whether driven by political or ideological motives, Trump’s move highlights the fragile balance between judicial independence and foreign pressure. For some, Moraes is a democratic defender against extremism. For others, an authoritarian censor disguised as a judge.

    Sources

  • Trump, Clinton, and the Island of Horrors: Who Protected Jeffrey Epstein?

    Have you ever wondered how far the power of a wealthy and well-connected man can reach? Why were figures like Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and international magnates close to Jeffrey Epstein—even after his first conviction for sex crimes? And what really happened on that isolated island where authorities never entered and boundaries vanished?

    A Millionaire Predator and the Pact of Silence

    Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire financier influential among the global elite, was accused of running a network that exploited teenage girls, some under the age of 15, for years. Under the pretext of offering money for “massages,” he lured girls in states such as Florida and New York. Despite the severity of the accusations, Epstein escaped full federal charges in 2008 thanks to a controversial plea deal orchestrated by Alexander Acosta—who years later became Trump’s Secretary of Labor.

    The lenient sentence (13 months in jail with work-release privileges) sparked public outrage and raised questions: how could someone so connected avoid real punishment?

    Surrounded by Power: Politicians, Princes, and Billionaires

    Epstein maintained a network of powerful contacts—including former presidents like Bill Clinton, then-businessman Donald Trump, celebrities, and aristocrats like Prince Andrew. Photographs, flight logs, and testimonies indicate many of these figures attended parties at his New York mansion, flew on his private jet—nicknamed the “Lolita Express”—and, in some cases, visited his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    Trump, for example, described Epstein in the 1990s as “a fantastic guy” and acknowledged they had known each other for many years. Although he denied involvement with Epstein’s crimes after Epstein’s arrest, records show they attended private events and dinners together with other public figures.

    The Island Where Everything Was Allowed

    Little St. James, the private island Epstein bought in 1998, became a symbol of systemic abuse and impunity. Located in the Caribbean, surrounded by security and electronic surveillance, the island was described by victims as a place where girls were taken by force or deception—often transported by plane or boat. There were no authorities, no rules—only what Epstein and his guests decided.

    On the island’s hill stood a mysterious “temple” with fake windows that raised suspicion. The interior, according to staff, was inaccessible and protected by steel doors. Cameras installed throughout the property led to suspicions Epstein recorded the abuses—allegedly to blackmail powerful guests and ensure his ongoing protection.

    Maxwell, Secret Lists, and the Persisting Mystery

    Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and Epstein’s former partner, was arrested and convicted for her role in the sex trafficking network. She helped recruit and control victims, often using promises of careers or scholarships. During the trial, it was revealed she had handed over a list containing more than 100 names linked to Epstein’s activities. Most of these names remain under judicial seal.

    The case gained renewed momentum in 2024 when unredacted court documents began to be released. In them, Trump’s name was again cited among those connected to the network, reigniting debate about who will truly be held accountable—and who will remain protected.

    A Network That Survives the Scandal

    Despite Epstein’s death in 2019, officially ruled a suicide—although experts noted unusual neck fractures—doubts remain. The system that protected him remains largely intact. None of the island’s most famous visitors have been formally charged to this day.

    Journalist Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald summarized it well: “This is not just one man’s case. It’s a system’s case. One that bends over backwards to protect the rich, even when it costs the childhoods of so many girls.”

    References

  • Trump and the Tariff Empire: A Global Economic Bully

    Since returning to the U.S. presidency in 2025, Donald Trump has launched an unprecedented tariff offensive against allied countries and key trading partners. It’s the peak of a policy driven more by authoritarian rhetoric than by sound economic strategy — a true case of economic bullying.

    An Authoritarian and Unilateral Approach

    Trump imposed steep tariffs — 50% on Brazilian goods, 25% on imports from Japan, Canada, and Mexico, and up to 55% on Chinese products — all based on vague claims about trade deficits or political alignment (as seen in accusations against former President Bolsonaro).

    These measures are implemented regardless of World Trade Organization rules or long-standing trade relationships. Economists harshly criticize the lack of strategic planning, warning that the exclusive focus on goods deficits ignores the role of services and global supply chain complexity.

    The World as a Target: No One Is Safe

    While most world leaders pursue multilateral agreements, Trump stands alone as the only global leader systematically issuing tariff orders year after year. He’s imposed bilateral tariffs on over 90 countries — including NATO allies, the EU, and emerging economies such as Brazil, Japan, and South Korea.

    This coercive strategy often blurs the line between personal and national interests — as seen when Bolsonaro’s legal situation was tied to sanctions against Brazil, turning domestic politics into tools of international leverage.

    Global Backlash: Retaliation and Damage to U.S. Credibility

    The international response was swift and coordinated. Canada and the European Union announced retaliatory tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of American products, increasing the risk of a full-blown global trade war.

    In Brazil, the fallout was immediate: the real depreciated, the stock market dropped, and industries like coffee, meat, aluminum, steel, and even Embraer faced major setbacks. Embraer’s CEO compared the tariff impact to the shock felt during the pandemic.

    Economic Bullying: The Politics of Intimidation

    More than just a trade policy, Trump’s actions resemble a bullying tactic on a global scale — public threats, unilateral moves, and demands framed as non-negotiable. He pressures nations with loud threats, only to back off or go silent when the approach becomes counterproductive — a pattern some analysts have dubbed “Trump Always Chickens Out.”

    Brazil Pushes Back: Reciprocity and Sovereignty

    The Brazilian government responded forcefully. President Lula emphasized the country’s sovereignty and criticized the U.S. for acting unilaterally. Finance Minister Haddad warned that such measures harm both global trade and sustainable deglobalization.

    Brazil passed the Economic Reciprocity Law, allowing equivalent tariffs if Trump follows through on the 50% hike. The country is also considering taking the issue to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

    A Global Leader or a Global Bully?

    Trump is using tariffs as instruments of global coercion — an aggressive, isolationist stance with few historical parallels in U.S. diplomacy. Since 2025, he has stood as the only global leader enforcing systematic punitive tariffs, acting like an economic bully who disregards multilateral protocols and often bypasses objective data in favor of personal dominance.

    References

  • Keto or Mediterranean Diet: Which One Really Helps You Lose More Weight?

    They both lead to weight loss. But do they heal? Which one protects your heart? And which can you actually stick with?

    The ketogenic diet has become a trend: lots of fat, almost no carbs, and promises of rapid fat burning. But is this restrictive model sustainable? The Mediterranean diet, known for its plant-based foundation and olive oil, also promotes weight loss — but is it effective enough in comparison? Which one offers better metabolic benefits? And ultimately, which of these diets is truly viable for most people?

    A recent randomized clinical trial compared these two approaches in overweight individuals, revealing surprising insights not only about how much weight is lost, but what living on each diet actually feels like.

    Keto Works — But at a Cost

    In the study, participants followed one of the two diets for 12 weeks. Those on the keto diet lost weight more quickly during the first 4 to 8 weeks. The dramatic calorie reduction due to cutting out almost all carbs (less than 10% of total intake) triggered significant drops in weight and body fat.

    However, researchers noted frequent side effects: constipation, fatigue, irritability, insomnia, and poor adherence after the third month. In addition, lipid profiles (cholesterol and triglycerides) worsened in some participants, especially those who increased intake of meats and full-fat dairy products.

    Mediterranean: Less Drastic, More Sustainable

    Meanwhile, the Mediterranean diet — rich in fruits, vegetables, olive oil, fish, whole grains, and nuts — led to slower but steadier weight loss over time.

    The study also showed that participants on the Mediterranean diet experienced broader improvements in cardiovascular health, including reduced triglycerides, blood pressure, and fasting glucose, along with a general increase in well-being and diet adherence.

    By the end of the study, most people in the Mediterranean group were still comfortably following the diet, while many in the keto group had abandoned or significantly modified their original plan.

    What the Study Really Reveals

    The trial highlighted a crucial point: both diets can lead to weight loss, but long-term success depends on adherence and side effects.

    The ketogenic diet might be a short-term strategy for rapid loss, but it’s not sustainable for everyone. Meanwhile, the Mediterranean diet, though less intense, proved to be effective in a gentler way — with broader and more sustainable metabolic benefits, especially for those with cardiovascular risk factors or metabolic syndrome.

    What if the Answer Isn’t Just on the Scale?

    At the end of the 12 weeks, the question “which diet leads to more weight loss?” may not be the most important one. Instead, the study encourages deeper reflection: which diet can you stick to without sacrificing your physical and mental health? Which fits your culture, lifestyle, and pleasure in eating?

    Scientific References: