OK, so this is the Gist. Let's do the Brexit bit.
So, basically, Ms. May's Wednesday claim the Cabinet backed her was missing the *until they start to quit. Mr. Raab, the man who had negotiated the Brexit deal quit, reputedly in horror at what he had wrought. He later explained that there was a better deal (nature unspecified) available if only Ms. May would ask one more time for it. And that it was that better deal (details not supplied) that he really wanted to support.
Then some other Tories quit from their makey-up jobs, alerting the populous very briefly of their previously unsuspected existence. Lord Snooty MP went looking for a new party leader (presumably in the nearest looking-glass).
Ms. May, displaying the incapacity to react to external stimuli which has become her hallmark, shrugged it off. She remains undeterred from a seemingly doomed effort to win a Commons Vote for the EU's offer.
Meanwhile, in Ireland, the population struggled with conflicting wishes- both wanting to see the UK do a sensible deal and the, less noble, desire to find out what our nearest neighbour looked like while being consumed by eldritch demons of historical irony.
Lost in the din of Brexit, the NY Times ran a scoop on Facebook's internal reaction to the platform's part in disinformation and democratic subversion. It was eye-popping. I mean, I have to quote this:
"Facebook employed a Republican opposition-research firm to discredit activist protesters, in part by linking them to the liberal financier George Soros. It also tapped its business relationships, lobbying a Jewish civil rights group to cast some criticism of the company as anti-Semitic."
In response, Facebook said they did nothing wrong and also that they'd just that day fired those lads.
Then, later, Zuckerberg went on the phone to some journalists to explain that, as Facebook's benign king, nobody told him about the bad things his servants had done in his name. And also, that he was thinking of setting up a fully independent board (chosen, appointed and paid for by Facebook, which is an interesting new definition of independent) people could appeal their algorithmic banning.
No US reporter noticed that this human involvement was, in fact, a requirement of Article 22 of the GDPR.