X are simultaneously saying they've not been made aware of the allegations, but that they deny the allegations, and that the allegations are politically motivated.
motorest · 1h ago
> X are simultaneously saying they've not been made aware of the allegations, but that they deny the allegations, and that the allegations are politically motivated.
What a time we live in, where things like antisemitism and supremacist views are framed as mere political inclinations that are unreasonably threatened by other people, even minorities, having rights.
gruez · 42m ago
>X are simultaneously saying they've not been made aware of the allegations
You're trying to imply there's some contradiction between the three statements, but there really isn't. For one, X never claimed "they've not been made aware of the allegations". The exact wording used in the article was "it “remains in the dark” about the specific allegations", which is different than not being aware of the allegations at all. Moreover it's not contradictory to deny allegations that you're not aware of the specifics about. For instance, if someone accused you of saying a racist thing, but didn't reference a specific incident, it'd be pretty reasonable to both claim you're "in the dark about the specific allegations", and to deny it. It'd also be reasonable to claim it's politically motivated, if for instance it was coming from someone you had beef with.
mcbrit · 1h ago
Yes? That is just obviously correct given the judicial system for hundreds of years.
I get why you are outraged, but also: inform yourself. This is exactly what even minimally competent defense does and should look like.
alexb_ · 1h ago
Ah, the good ol' "Epstein Strategy"
nashashmi · 2h ago
Strange case. After the TikTok Israel saga, we all know that there are some form of algorithm manipulation or lack of manipulation going on, and if that manipulation is not favorable, then there’s a bill called for the sale of such a company to some western aligned that country.
So now France wants to criminally prosecute as though they violated some existing law?
xyzal · 2h ago
Excuse me, what was 'TikTok Israel saga'?
gruez · 38m ago
Views on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on tiktok is predominantly anti-Israel/pro-Palestine, which some accuse is a result of Tiktok is rigging the algorithm.
nashashmi · 19m ago
While others accuse TikTok of not doing enough to manipulate the popularity of the content to suppress pro Palestinian voices. Hence why TikTok is being forced to sell to a western buyer or risk being banned in the US.
sva_ · 3h ago
Does France have some laws how an algorithm is allowed to behave?
CrlNvl · 2h ago
Well, in a way yes. During an election day and the day before, you are not allowed to push official communication (ie a political party can tell you "Go vote" but not "Go vote for us because we will put a stop to immigration") be it via a website, email, mail, etc. See https://presidentielle2022.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/l-elec.... So a sponsored post from a political party appearing in your timeline would be an issue due to the platform if it ignores these rules.
xyzal · 2h ago
Most countries have laws against foreign interference. I presume disproportionately propagating far-right content via algorithm might very well count as such an interference.
amelius · 2h ago
How do you prove it?
xyzal · 2h ago
Not that hard really (found only German example though)
That doesn't really prove that much. They only made 3 accounts on X, then with each account they followed the 4 major parties and their leaders. Not a very good sample size.
Additionally, the underlying algo could lean toward to what causes more engagement rather than equally tailoring each party. Without having any information personally about German politics or their cultural engagement with social media, I can only anecdotally say that in America, it appears to me that the ones most engaged with social media on X are more often than not right leaning. More of the left-leaning engagement seems increasingly moving towards other outlets, such as Bluesky.
amelius · 1h ago
Social media is a populist's dream come true.
All the anger is amplified through an algorithm and you can't even say it's the algorithm's fault.
tzs · 1h ago
> I can only anecdotally say that in America, it appears to me that the ones most engaged with social media on X are more often than not right leaning. More of the left-leaning engagement seems increasingly moving towards other outlets, such as Bluesky.
Isn't that movement because Musk changed X to increase promotion of right-wing things and decrease promotion of left-wing things?
Before Musk Twitter did promote right-wing stuff more than left-wing stuff. I don't have a cite but there was a paper published by researchers who had been given full access to internal Twitter data that showed this.
That level of right-leaning is probably the level of right-leaning you get from the natural level of engagement you get on a fairly neutral platform from right-wing people being more likely to engage than left-wing people.
motorest · 59m ago
> That doesn't really prove that much.
You seem confused. France launched a criminal probe, whose goal is to investigate whether these types of biases reflect actual manipulation from Twitter. You are presented with evidence suggesting these biases exist. Now France is expected to look into them. Their findings will either support a criminal case, reject a criminal case, or simply not support further investigations.
> Pushing antisemitism, holocaust denial, and supremacist content is not ok, even if you argue they are only pushing extremist content for the clicks (which is a laughably bad hypothesis as Twitter's business model depends on the platform having mainstream appeal)
retinaros · 2h ago
this is the playbook. they dont need to prove it beyond some weak deduction mecanism. they did it for romania to cancel an election
amelius · 2h ago
What if e.g. right-leaning content gets more likes/upvotes and this makes the algorithm show the posts more? That way, the algorithm can still be neutral, but the result is not.
Cthulhu_ · 2h ago
Subpoena the company and demand registration data for accounts flagged as looking like foreign influence. If it's a foreign IP or email, it's foreign influence. If it's through a proxy or VPN, it's likely foreign influence.
It is that simple. If Twitter doesn't comply with court orders like that, they will no longer be allowed to operate within France or the EU. Never ever think companies are above the law or don't have to cooperate with requests like this, that's a defeatist attitude.
somenameforme · 1h ago
That's literally a fishing expedition that could be exploited to harvest information on whoever one likes. It's the reason our legal system requires a substantial burden of evidence before one can even think of pursuing a warrant.
I mean seriously think about the implications of your concept here. X is a worldwide service. Should X just be an information broker dealing out the details on users to any country that makes claims as nebulous as 'foreign influence'? It's a term which can be (and often is) whimsically applied to essentially anybody who happens to disagree with some regime in a given country.
polotics · 1h ago
"Should X just be an information broker dealing out the details on users to any country that makes claims as nebulous as 'foreign influence'?"
Yes. A poster that specifically tries to influence a French elections with false statements is breaking French law wherever and whoever they are.
> Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence firm xAI has deleted “inappropriate” posts on X after the company’s chatbot, Grok, began praising Adolf Hitler, referring to itself as MechaHitler and making antisemitic comments in response to user queries.
[…]
> “The white man stands for innovation, grit and not bending to PC nonsense,” Grok said in a subsequent post.
> In a series of posts – often picking up language from users or responding to their goading – Grok repeatedly abused [Polish PM] Tusk as “a fucking traitor”, “a ginger whore” and said the former European Council president was “an opportunist who sells sovereignty for EU jobs”.
> Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence chatbot Grok had been repeatedly mentioning “white genocide” in South Africa in its responses to unrelated topics and telling users it was “instructed by my creators” to accept the genocide “as real and racially motivated”.
These things kept happening for 2-3 years with pre-ChatGPT LLM tech demos from Microsoft, Meta and Google.
Not to be an apologist of course, just wanted to point out that it may be a sign of them being behind the curve on some technical aspects, or at least on best practice, likely on purpose. Sure they probably did some ideological meddling too.
For all the (valid) criticism on alignment/censoring, one has to acknowledge the success of the pragmatic approach from OpenAI and Anthropic. As much as we might not want to admit it, bit of censoring is kind of critical to be able to use LLMs seriously to solve real problems.
chrisco255 · 2h ago
A bot went off the rails, and was subsequently corrected. Again, what is the problem? I thought France had freedom of speech but maybe not?
williamdclt · 2h ago
> I thought France had freedom of speech but maybe not?
Freedom of speech in France (and many other countries) is not the same as the US (assuming you are from the US). Apart from the question of whether it even applies for an AI, it does not protect hate speech.
makeitdouble · 2h ago
I'd see two sides at least:
- the bot can't work in a legal void. It's pushing messages on a public platform , someone has the responsibility for that.
- if correcting speech is enough we should all be free push whatever horrible things we want online, subsequently correct them and never face any consequences whatsoever.
motorest · 1h ago
> A bot went off the rails, and was subsequently corrected.
How sure are you about that? I mean, it is more likely that the bot overshot how it was expected to push propaganda. Musk is on record expressing disagreement with how LLMs are trained to be "politicaly-correct", which is a dog whistle for pushing extremist views.
> Again, what is the problem? I thought France had freedom of speech but maybe not?
This is a puerile and simplistic view of what freedom of speech is. You are free t speak your mind, but others around you are free from experiencing abuse and discrimination. Also, media has more responsibilities than morons running their mouth, and even those are liable for hate speech.
zitsarethecure · 2h ago
France's freedom of speech is as strong, or stronger, than the US.
docdeek · 2h ago
It’s different to the US in some important ways.
There are strict limitations on 'hate speech’, denial of the Holocaust is illegal, and there are laws still on the books (and some examples of media outlets being prosecuted for breaking those laws) around presenting drug use as a positive thing, or encouraging drug use.
You can be prosecuted as an "apologist for terrorism” should the government conclude that this is what you are doing. You can also be charged with “contempt of public officials” as people were for burning an effigy of President Macron.
In the US, as far as I know as someone who has only ever visited the country for a short time, you are allowed to hold the President in contempt, you can announce to anyone who’ll listen your ignorant, racist, Holocaust-denying opinions and not be afraid of that speech being criminalized (though there are social costs you’ll probably pay), and if you want to go on the internet and encourage people to try drugs, you can. You can support whatever side of whatever conflict around the world you like with your words and you probably won’t be breaking the law.
France’s laws around freedom of expression are strong, but they are different to those in the US and I would say offer fewer protections for citizens than the US 1st amendnment.
Anonbrit · 36m ago
I think I'm the US, those are all things you could do until recently. 1st amendment is being more and more ignored currently
Cthulhu_ · 1h ago
In the US and most countries though, there's libel / defamation laws; you can say a lot of shit about people, but they can then sue you for libel / defamation if you spout nonsense.
docdeek · 1h ago
Those same laws exist here in France, too, even if they are a little more complex. The truth of a statement, for example, is not a sufficient defence if that truth is not something that is public. Making someones private life public, even if your comment is true, can be against the law.
Defamation might be illegal in both the US and France, but I can burn an American flag and show contempt for the US President without commiting a crime the US. Do the same in the France and you don’t have the same protections for your speech.
Cthulhu_ · 1h ago
If you don't see the problem with far-right rhetoric then you are part of the problem. Europe has free speech protections, but only within reason; nazi symbolism is explicitly banned in Germany for example, and holocaust denial is also illegal.
Then there's some things you can say without getting into legal trouble, but you may get killed for it by those you offend.
fzeroracer · 2h ago
I would say after the bot has gone off the rail three+ times and conveniently pushed specific agendas (or just went full racist) that it's probably time for an investigation to figure out who's doing what and why.
aredox · 1h ago
We have freedom of movement but there are retricted areas.
We have freedom of religion but you can't e.g. declare "child porn" is your religion.
We have freedom of assembly but the police can disperse a crowd.
And that's the case everywhere, the US included.
etc etc etc
akie · 2h ago
Come on man, let's not pretend X is some sort of paragon of virtue here. It's basically a Nazi bar at this point.
dev_l1x_be · 3h ago
According to the imaginatory rules of lawyers / bankers in power.
poulpy123 · 2h ago
I'm not overly familiar with the law and I'm not defending that (I despise both the government and Elon Musk) but there are indeed laws regulating speeches and on top of that laws are flexible and the politician's power over them is quite strong. They had no problem forbidding Russian tv channels in a few days back when the war in Ukraine started
johnecheck · 3h ago
What constitutes illegal algorithm manipulation? What obligations to impartiality do digital space providers like Musk/X have?
Not sure what laws exist but it seems tricky to design a coherent legal standard around what sorts of algorithms are allowed. I'd rather just be able to choose between open-source algorithms, that way we can just not use the one that pushes {Billionaire}'s latest post to the top.
throw0101b · 2h ago
> What constitutes illegal algorithm manipulation? What obligations to impartiality do digital space providers like Musk/X have?
From another comment that found the statute (in French):
Those all seem to me to be "altering a system against the wishes of the owners", hopefully not "altering a system you own against the wishes of the state".
(auto translation)
> Fraudulently accessing or maintaining access to all or part of an automated data processing system is punishable by three years' imprisonment and a fine of €100,000.
> Where this results in either the deletion or modification of data contained in the system, or an alteration of the functioning of this system, the penalty is five years' imprisonment and a fine of €150,000.
Unless I've missed something more specific lower down.
dev_l1x_be · 3h ago
Whatever the state does not like.
aredox · 2h ago
To answer the questions the first commenters already have but didn't bother to search for: the accusation is « altération du fonctionnement d’un système de traitement automatisé de données en bande organisée » and « extraction frauduleuse de données d’un système de traitement automatisé de données en bande organisée ».
> At the heart of this investigation lies a legal innovation. Mr. Bothorel's alert is largely based on a recent analysis published on February 6 by legal scholar and law professor Michel Séjean. In the specialist journal Dalloz, he argues that under French law, distorting the operation of a recommendation algorithm on a social network can be punishable by the same penalties as computer hacking. According to this analysis, manipulating a platform's algorithm without the users' knowledge would be punishable under Article 323-2 of the French Penal Code, which punishes “hindering or distorting the operation of an automated data processing system”.
rawling · 2h ago
Thanks for the context.
(Machine translation also)
> Obstructing or distorting the operation of an automated data processing system is punishable by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €150,000.
I would be really worried if that got applied to people working on systems they own. Take it down because of an issue? Obstruction. Make a change? Distortion.
byroot · 1h ago
No need to be worried about that. French law (like most others I presume?) is all about intent.
e.g. to be convicted of trespassing, it has to be proven you knew you were trespassing, or at least that you reasonably should have known.
So no, you wouldn't be convicted because you accidentally took down your own system, etc.
At the end of the day, regardless of whether the letter of the law will allow it or not, what is clearly being investigated here, is a supposed (and somewhat documented) intent at influencing the French people through a distortion of the Twitter/X algorithm.
Until now, all the "social media" platforms have essentially been regulated like hosting services, under the assumption that they have a fairly neutral stance toward the content they host. Hence they're not directly held responsible for what they display.
But if it turns out their algorithms aren't so neutral, it begs the question of whether they should be regulated like legacy medias, hence be held responsible for what they publish.
orwin · 43m ago
I think this is the plan here. I don't know if I agree or disagree with it yet, but basically what I think will happen if the investigation find proof of active partisanship in the algorithm (or just boosting Elons tweets):
Criminal intent probably won't be found (or without enough evidence), so this investigation won't result in a lawsuit. However, depending on the findings Twitter might have to be considered as a publisher, not as an hosting platform, and this would make twitter liable for published user content.
Once Twitter is considered as a publisher, all hell break loose for other algorithm-based social media companies.
williamdclt · 2h ago
I don't have any particular legal understanding, but yeah that's my understanding too.
aspenmayer · 3h ago
Original title edited for length:
> France has launched criminal probe of X over alleged algorithm ‘manipulation’, platform says
freedom of speech is above everything. France and Europe have been pushing narratives to hinder this under the premises of fighting evil (at the moment far right). first they wanted to track any cash usage to fight "terrorism" now they want to watch over social network and remove anonymity from the web. just like they cried over deepseek not talking about tiananmen they opressed people that criticized the left-leaning propaganda baked into the GPTs/Anthropic. in a few years we will have social points like china and those who disagree with left-leaning ideas and government interventionism will be reduced to silence or even jailed.
Cthulhu_ · 1h ago
> freedom of speech is above everything.
No it is not. I have the freedom to call you all kinds of insults, but I will get banned (if I'm not already, I wouldn't know lol). It's the paradox of intolerance.
> in a few years we will have social points like china and those who disagree with left-leaning ideas and government interventionism will be reduced to silence or even jailed.
This is a slippery slope fallacy. Besides, the current powers-that-be are actively suppressing free speech already, banning books, teachings, erasing LGBTQ+ and Black history. You don't get freedom of speech either on platforms like Twitter, where for example the word "cisgender" gets actively suppressed. That's known, what isn't known is how certain topics get boosted or suppressed by their algorithms, which is why there should be transparency.
If you're afraid of the slippery slope from "the left", wake up and see what's actually happening right now. People in the US get disappeared while following the proper immigration processes. The media and speech is actively being suppressed (see the sudden cancellation of The Late Show).
gruez · 33m ago
>This is a slippery slope fallacy. Besides, the current powers-that-be are actively suppressing free speech already, banning books, teachings, erasing LGBTQ+ and Black history. You don't get freedom of speech either on platforms like Twitter, where for example the word "cisgender" gets actively suppressed. That's known, what isn't known is how certain topics get boosted or suppressed by their algorithms, which is why there should be transparency.
What does US culture war issues have relevance to what's going on with France? Moreover what's the implication here? Are you trying to imply that because Americans are doing right-wing censorship, it's fine or even required that France engages in left-wing censorship?
retinaros · 30m ago
yes he implies that there is an axis of good (his ideas, biden ideas, left leaning media) and a wrong side. somehow it is hard for people biased towards an ideology to understand that they are just the other side of a same coin....
retinaros · 1h ago
who defines what is an insult? the law? its interpretation based on ideology? who makes the law? in china talking about winnie the pooh can get you to jail. In western europe like (UK,Germany) that would be having memes or criticizing immigration policies
dont ever forget that the tools you build to punish and censor your opponents will be in its reach once they come to power. for instance Biden and twitter created a precedent that allowed X and Trump to happen.
LightBug1 · 2h ago
Good. Personally, I hope France flushes Twitter down the Xitter and enables a model for other countries to do the same.
poulpy123 · 2h ago
It's not that I like twitter but believing that the current government (or whatever one that is able to replace it) will give an interesting model providing both free speech and a reasonable regulation is a joke
LightBug1 · 1h ago
So, what you're saying is, that you expect the French government will be about as effective as Xitter senior leadership, and possibly worse. That's a fair point actually ...
jay-barronville · 2h ago
X isn't going anywhere.
jay-barronville · 2h ago
Based on all available evidence, I tend to agree with X that this "investigation" does, in fact, appear to be politically motivated. I don't see any substantive evidence to the contrary.
phendrenad2 · 2h ago
So they're basically accusing Twitter of violating an anti-hacking law, by manipulating their own algorithm. Fantastic.
orwin · 40m ago
Yes, basically. They won't find criminal intent, so that probe won't end in a lawsuit, but I bet it will end up changing Twitter status from hosting service to publisher.
storus · 2h ago
OK, so EU is allowed to manipulate social media under various threats, and now when some social media says enough of this, they are criminalized? And people are applauding it?
xyzal · 2h ago
Those threats are called "laws". We strive to the ideal of living in a society that respects laws. Twitter/X is free to leave if they don't like it, of course.
bluecalm · 2h ago
Yeah but then laws need to be clear, understandable and possible to enforce fairly.
What is X accused of specifically? "Algorithm manipulation" doesn't sound like a crime to me.
orwin · 35m ago
It is if you find criminal intent. They probably won't find any, so the probe won't end up in a lawsuit.
Basically it's a discovery process before a litigation. I'm 99.99% sure it won't end up in a lawsuit.
My bet is that the probe will end up saying: 'criminal intent can't be proven'. Then either the parquet (basically DOJ but less political) or customer protection will say "this probe showed that your algorithm wasn't neutral, you choose which content to show and which not show, you're a publisher now" and Twitter will have to prove it's not, or be treated as a publisher.
xyzal · 2h ago
I bet on 'foreign interference'
storus · 1h ago
That's becoming the new "think of the children".
retinaros · 2h ago
look at what europe and its media did to romanian elections. we are in Huxley brave new world
tzs · 31m ago
Romania really needs to fix their election system.
They are using a system where the winner is whoever gets more than 50%, but if nobody gets more than 50% they hold a run-off vote between the top two from the first vote.
The problem is that Romania has several viable political parties, which would be great if they used an election system designed to handle that like ranked choice, but in a top two run-off system has a high chance of electing someone that a large majority of the voters rank near the bottom of the candidates.
In the election you are referring to there were candidates from 10 different parties plus 4 independents running. I believe 6 of the parties were right-wing and 4 left-wing. The right-wing parties got 47% of the votes, with the top 3 of them getting 19.18%, 13.86%, and 8.79%.
The left-wing parties got 20% with the highest part getting 19.15%.
Independents got 33% with the highest individual getting 22.94%.
drcongo · 2h ago
You've not read Brave New World have you.
libertine · 2h ago
TV, Radio, Press, Outdoors, and every other media have laws and regulations - laws and regulations set by elected officials, that go through a transparent process, and for which people might disagree and vote out those elected officials. This ranges from the amount of advertising space, content, and political propaganda; everything has a set of rules and regulations.
Why is it ok for you to have a billionaire do whatever he wants, including spreading disinformation and propaganda, and allow for bot networks to spread propaganda from foreign agents, without any accountability?
Why should we have no rules for social media, while all the remaining media have to abide by laws and are held accountable for it?
Why should a billionaire have more power than the people who voted?
storus · 1h ago
Why should the billionaires that set the current EU social networking policy be more important than the lone billionaire that runs X? Or do you think these policies are organic and come from the EU population itself?
libertine · 58m ago
As I said: these decisions are made by elected officials.
If there's a conspiracy of corruption/lobbying/interests behind those countries' decisions, it's a completely different problem that is for those countries' regulators to control, and/or for the people to choose to vote for someone else.
France isn't Russia or Iran, where you have an illegitimate regime that does whatever it wants above their law and constitution.
A Conspiracy Theory doesn't give any right to the billionaire owner of the social network to be above the law.
storus · 52m ago
AFAIK X is owned by an American billionaire, not a Russian/Iranian one, so please don't pollute the argument with irrelevant strawmen. What we are seeing real-time is a failure/hack of representative democracy that serves only some extremely small, but well-connected minority at the levers of power that are willing to drive EU to the ground just to stay in power (see EU economic performance since 2008).
libertine · 33m ago
Well, you're taking what I said out of context, because it was YOU who brought the conspiracy theory stating that France/EU illegitimately serves the interests of billionaires, whereas I compared it to countries such as Russia/Iran.
So don't try to spin your irrelevant bad takes on me, own up to them.
> What we are seeing...
What you're seeing is that a billionaire is being held accountable, and for some unknown reason, you don't like it. You don't represent the opinion of anyone but yourself.
storus · 18m ago
Strawman fallacy, poisoning the well, circumstantial ad hominem, implied tu quoque, accusation & moralistic framing, dismissive language & loaded terms, shifting blame & victim reversal, false attribution of motive, appeal to irrelevance, aggressive & dismissive tone - I am impressed. Taking rhétorique noire classes?
fzeroracer · 2h ago
Maybe we can ask Mecha Hitler what his opinions are on social media manipulation.
What a time we live in, where things like antisemitism and supremacist views are framed as mere political inclinations that are unreasonably threatened by other people, even minorities, having rights.
You're trying to imply there's some contradiction between the three statements, but there really isn't. For one, X never claimed "they've not been made aware of the allegations". The exact wording used in the article was "it “remains in the dark” about the specific allegations", which is different than not being aware of the allegations at all. Moreover it's not contradictory to deny allegations that you're not aware of the specifics about. For instance, if someone accused you of saying a racist thing, but didn't reference a specific incident, it'd be pretty reasonable to both claim you're "in the dark about the specific allegations", and to deny it. It'd also be reasonable to claim it's politically motivated, if for instance it was coming from someone you had beef with.
I get why you are outraged, but also: inform yourself. This is exactly what even minimally competent defense does and should look like.
So now France wants to criminally prosecute as though they violated some existing law?
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/global-witness_globalwitnessi...
Additionally, the underlying algo could lean toward to what causes more engagement rather than equally tailoring each party. Without having any information personally about German politics or their cultural engagement with social media, I can only anecdotally say that in America, it appears to me that the ones most engaged with social media on X are more often than not right leaning. More of the left-leaning engagement seems increasingly moving towards other outlets, such as Bluesky.
All the anger is amplified through an algorithm and you can't even say it's the algorithm's fault.
Isn't that movement because Musk changed X to increase promotion of right-wing things and decrease promotion of left-wing things?
Before Musk Twitter did promote right-wing stuff more than left-wing stuff. I don't have a cite but there was a paper published by researchers who had been given full access to internal Twitter data that showed this.
That level of right-leaning is probably the level of right-leaning you get from the natural level of engagement you get on a fairly neutral platform from right-wing people being more likely to engage than left-wing people.
You seem confused. France launched a criminal probe, whose goal is to investigate whether these types of biases reflect actual manipulation from Twitter. You are presented with evidence suggesting these biases exist. Now France is expected to look into them. Their findings will either support a criminal case, reject a criminal case, or simply not support further investigations.
> Pushing antisemitism, holocaust denial, and supremacist content is not ok, even if you argue they are only pushing extremist content for the clicks (which is a laughably bad hypothesis as Twitter's business model depends on the platform having mainstream appeal)
It is that simple. If Twitter doesn't comply with court orders like that, they will no longer be allowed to operate within France or the EU. Never ever think companies are above the law or don't have to cooperate with requests like this, that's a defeatist attitude.
I mean seriously think about the implications of your concept here. X is a worldwide service. Should X just be an information broker dealing out the details on users to any country that makes claims as nebulous as 'foreign influence'? It's a term which can be (and often is) whimsically applied to essentially anybody who happens to disagree with some regime in a given country.
Yes. A poster that specifically tries to influence a French elections with false statements is breaking French law wherever and whoever they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_TikTok_in_the_...
How about:
> Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence firm xAI has deleted “inappropriate” posts on X after the company’s chatbot, Grok, began praising Adolf Hitler, referring to itself as MechaHitler and making antisemitic comments in response to user queries.
[…]
> “The white man stands for innovation, grit and not bending to PC nonsense,” Grok said in a subsequent post.
* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/09/grok-ai-p...
Or:
> In a series of posts – often picking up language from users or responding to their goading – Grok repeatedly abused [Polish PM] Tusk as “a fucking traitor”, “a ginger whore” and said the former European Council president was “an opportunist who sells sovereignty for EU jobs”.
* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/08/musks-gro...
Or last month's
> Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence chatbot Grok had been repeatedly mentioning “white genocide” in South Africa in its responses to unrelated topics and telling users it was “instructed by my creators” to accept the genocide “as real and racially motivated”.
* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/14/elon-musk...
Not to be an apologist of course, just wanted to point out that it may be a sign of them being behind the curve on some technical aspects, or at least on best practice, likely on purpose. Sure they probably did some ideological meddling too.
For all the (valid) criticism on alignment/censoring, one has to acknowledge the success of the pragmatic approach from OpenAI and Anthropic. As much as we might not want to admit it, bit of censoring is kind of critical to be able to use LLMs seriously to solve real problems.
Freedom of speech in France (and many other countries) is not the same as the US (assuming you are from the US). Apart from the question of whether it even applies for an AI, it does not protect hate speech.
- the bot can't work in a legal void. It's pushing messages on a public platform , someone has the responsibility for that.
- if correcting speech is enough we should all be free push whatever horrible things we want online, subsequently correct them and never face any consequences whatsoever.
How sure are you about that? I mean, it is more likely that the bot overshot how it was expected to push propaganda. Musk is on record expressing disagreement with how LLMs are trained to be "politicaly-correct", which is a dog whistle for pushing extremist views.
> Again, what is the problem? I thought France had freedom of speech but maybe not?
This is a puerile and simplistic view of what freedom of speech is. You are free t speak your mind, but others around you are free from experiencing abuse and discrimination. Also, media has more responsibilities than morons running their mouth, and even those are liable for hate speech.
There are strict limitations on 'hate speech’, denial of the Holocaust is illegal, and there are laws still on the books (and some examples of media outlets being prosecuted for breaking those laws) around presenting drug use as a positive thing, or encouraging drug use.
You can be prosecuted as an "apologist for terrorism” should the government conclude that this is what you are doing. You can also be charged with “contempt of public officials” as people were for burning an effigy of President Macron.
In the US, as far as I know as someone who has only ever visited the country for a short time, you are allowed to hold the President in contempt, you can announce to anyone who’ll listen your ignorant, racist, Holocaust-denying opinions and not be afraid of that speech being criminalized (though there are social costs you’ll probably pay), and if you want to go on the internet and encourage people to try drugs, you can. You can support whatever side of whatever conflict around the world you like with your words and you probably won’t be breaking the law.
France’s laws around freedom of expression are strong, but they are different to those in the US and I would say offer fewer protections for citizens than the US 1st amendnment.
Defamation might be illegal in both the US and France, but I can burn an American flag and show contempt for the US President without commiting a crime the US. Do the same in the France and you don’t have the same protections for your speech.
Then there's some things you can say without getting into legal trouble, but you may get killed for it by those you offend.
We have freedom of religion but you can't e.g. declare "child porn" is your religion.
We have freedom of assembly but the police can disperse a crowd.
And that's the case everywhere, the US included.
etc etc etc
Not sure what laws exist but it seems tricky to design a coherent legal standard around what sorts of algorithms are allowed. I'd rather just be able to choose between open-source algorithms, that way we can just not use the one that pushes {Billionaire}'s latest post to the top.
From another comment that found the statute (in French):
* https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGISCTA000006149839
(auto translation)
> Fraudulently accessing or maintaining access to all or part of an automated data processing system is punishable by three years' imprisonment and a fine of €100,000.
> Where this results in either the deletion or modification of data contained in the system, or an alteration of the functioning of this system, the penalty is five years' imprisonment and a fine of €150,000.
Unless I've missed something more specific lower down.
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/id/LEGISCTA000006149839
> altération du fonctionnement d’un système de traitement automatisé de données en bande organisée
Alteration/manipulation of a data processing system by an organised group of people.
> extraction frauduleuse de données d’un système de traitement automatisé de données en bande organisée
Fraudulent data extraction from a data processing system
"organised group of people" is terrible translation, it means it's in the realm of organised crime.
Deepl translation of the relevant part:
> At the heart of this investigation lies a legal innovation. Mr. Bothorel's alert is largely based on a recent analysis published on February 6 by legal scholar and law professor Michel Séjean. In the specialist journal Dalloz, he argues that under French law, distorting the operation of a recommendation algorithm on a social network can be punishable by the same penalties as computer hacking. According to this analysis, manipulating a platform's algorithm without the users' knowledge would be punishable under Article 323-2 of the French Penal Code, which punishes “hindering or distorting the operation of an automated data processing system”.
(Machine translation also)
> Obstructing or distorting the operation of an automated data processing system is punishable by five years' imprisonment and a fine of €150,000.
I would be really worried if that got applied to people working on systems they own. Take it down because of an issue? Obstruction. Make a change? Distortion.
e.g. to be convicted of trespassing, it has to be proven you knew you were trespassing, or at least that you reasonably should have known.
So no, you wouldn't be convicted because you accidentally took down your own system, etc.
At the end of the day, regardless of whether the letter of the law will allow it or not, what is clearly being investigated here, is a supposed (and somewhat documented) intent at influencing the French people through a distortion of the Twitter/X algorithm.
Until now, all the "social media" platforms have essentially been regulated like hosting services, under the assumption that they have a fairly neutral stance toward the content they host. Hence they're not directly held responsible for what they display.
But if it turns out their algorithms aren't so neutral, it begs the question of whether they should be regulated like legacy medias, hence be held responsible for what they publish.
Criminal intent probably won't be found (or without enough evidence), so this investigation won't result in a lawsuit. However, depending on the findings Twitter might have to be considered as a publisher, not as an hosting platform, and this would make twitter liable for published user content.
Once Twitter is considered as a publisher, all hell break loose for other algorithm-based social media companies.
> France has launched criminal probe of X over alleged algorithm ‘manipulation’, platform says
https://archive.is/wA7hr
* https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2025/07/11/france-p...
* https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/11/france-is-investigating-x-...
* FR: https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files...
No it is not. I have the freedom to call you all kinds of insults, but I will get banned (if I'm not already, I wouldn't know lol). It's the paradox of intolerance.
> in a few years we will have social points like china and those who disagree with left-leaning ideas and government interventionism will be reduced to silence or even jailed.
This is a slippery slope fallacy. Besides, the current powers-that-be are actively suppressing free speech already, banning books, teachings, erasing LGBTQ+ and Black history. You don't get freedom of speech either on platforms like Twitter, where for example the word "cisgender" gets actively suppressed. That's known, what isn't known is how certain topics get boosted or suppressed by their algorithms, which is why there should be transparency.
If you're afraid of the slippery slope from "the left", wake up and see what's actually happening right now. People in the US get disappeared while following the proper immigration processes. The media and speech is actively being suppressed (see the sudden cancellation of The Late Show).
What does US culture war issues have relevance to what's going on with France? Moreover what's the implication here? Are you trying to imply that because Americans are doing right-wing censorship, it's fine or even required that France engages in left-wing censorship?
dont ever forget that the tools you build to punish and censor your opponents will be in its reach once they come to power. for instance Biden and twitter created a precedent that allowed X and Trump to happen.
Basically it's a discovery process before a litigation. I'm 99.99% sure it won't end up in a lawsuit.
My bet is that the probe will end up saying: 'criminal intent can't be proven'. Then either the parquet (basically DOJ but less political) or customer protection will say "this probe showed that your algorithm wasn't neutral, you choose which content to show and which not show, you're a publisher now" and Twitter will have to prove it's not, or be treated as a publisher.
They are using a system where the winner is whoever gets more than 50%, but if nobody gets more than 50% they hold a run-off vote between the top two from the first vote.
The problem is that Romania has several viable political parties, which would be great if they used an election system designed to handle that like ranked choice, but in a top two run-off system has a high chance of electing someone that a large majority of the voters rank near the bottom of the candidates.
In the election you are referring to there were candidates from 10 different parties plus 4 independents running. I believe 6 of the parties were right-wing and 4 left-wing. The right-wing parties got 47% of the votes, with the top 3 of them getting 19.18%, 13.86%, and 8.79%.
The left-wing parties got 20% with the highest part getting 19.15%.
Independents got 33% with the highest individual getting 22.94%.
Why is it ok for you to have a billionaire do whatever he wants, including spreading disinformation and propaganda, and allow for bot networks to spread propaganda from foreign agents, without any accountability?
Why should we have no rules for social media, while all the remaining media have to abide by laws and are held accountable for it?
Why should a billionaire have more power than the people who voted?
If there's a conspiracy of corruption/lobbying/interests behind those countries' decisions, it's a completely different problem that is for those countries' regulators to control, and/or for the people to choose to vote for someone else.
France isn't Russia or Iran, where you have an illegitimate regime that does whatever it wants above their law and constitution.
A Conspiracy Theory doesn't give any right to the billionaire owner of the social network to be above the law.
So don't try to spin your irrelevant bad takes on me, own up to them.
> What we are seeing...
What you're seeing is that a billionaire is being held accountable, and for some unknown reason, you don't like it. You don't represent the opinion of anyone but yourself.