Government accuses social networks of incitement

Accused of relaying incitement to violence, social networks are under pressure from the government. Platform blockages, content reports, arrests of creators... Preventive measures that threaten freedom of expression.

Macron criticizes platforms as tools of violence

On October 26, during a visit to Marseille, Emmanuel Macron accused the platforms of being "instruments of mobilization of the worst." Following the damage at the edges of the demonstrations, many political figures have blamed these digital actors, accused of inciting violence. Although their actual role has not yet been proven, the executive is multiplying initiatives to try to control them.

Government considers blocking social media platforms

The government seemed ready to block access to platforms. To anticipate the second weekend of mobilization, October 24 and 25, according to the media Blast, Sébastien Lecornu would have sent a letter to the executives of Orange, Bouygues Télécom, SFR, and Free, instructing them to be prepared to "proceed without delay to the temporary suspension of the services concerned [TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, ndlr] for a duration of a few hours," if he gave the instruction.

Previous blockage deemed illegal but valid in principle

In May 2024, during the uprisings in New Caledonia, the government temporarily blocked TikTok on the island. "The Council of State later judged the modalities of this emergency procedure illegal," recalls Noémie Levain, a lawyer at Quadrature du Net, an association defending digital freedoms. "But, in principle, it validated in a way the possibility of a blockage." And it is a first.

Platforms suspend accounts under government pressure

Faced with the freedom of the platforms, inciting the removal of content. If no cut-off occurred during the "act II" of the social movement, several dozen accounts have been suspended in anticipation of the Saturday day, admitted Matignon in a statement. These blockages depend on the good will of the platforms, which the executive can only encourage to "better prevent the dissemination of illicit content calling for violence, damage or looting."

Legal challenges to government's influence

For Noémie Levain, it is a "paralegal censorship": the state does not legislate, but encourages the platforms "through a political power imbalance." The lawyer recalls a precedent: that of the riots following the death of young Nahel Merzouk in 2023. "The government had summoned the social networks, asking them to feature less certain content, which Snapchat assured would do." Since Wednesday evening, a message appears to users of TikTok wishing to publish a video: "The situation is evolving rapidly in your country. Be careful about what you post, report any potentially infringing content. [...] Remember that we do not allow content that endangers others, incites violence, or encourages criminal behavior."

Amendment to law expands content removal powers

In order to inscribe this strategy in the law, the government submitted on Monday an amendment to the "casseur-payeur" bill, discussed this week in the Senate in accelerated procedure. Originally, the text established an emergency procedure: content calling for "insurrection or arming against the state" was supposed to disappear within an hour of reporting, under penalty of blocking the concerned platforms. A device intended for terrorist content, and here extended to the context of demonstrations.

Legal concerns and arrests under new rules

Even before the submission of this text, reports on Pharos led to the arrest and detention of at least two content creators, for publications addressing the social movement. This is the case of Manon Delcourt, an influencer with 150,000 followers on Instagram, who was accused after the reporting of three posts on X and was held for twenty-six hours for "direct provocation of an act of terrorism using a public communication service," according to her lawyer, who recalls that she is presumed innocent pending her trial, scheduled for May 2027.

Freedom of expression at risk

Fears for freedom of expression. Although the amendment passed by the Senate this week would further expand the scope of online content reports, nothing ensures that it will pass the hurdle of the National Assembly, then that of the Constitutional Council. Because it runs up against a fundamental principle: that of freedom of expression. "The government continues its dangerous retreat," warns PS deputy Arthur Delaporte on X. "Under the guise of fighting violence, it threatens freedom of expression and opens the way to administrative censorship."