This November 12, in Toulouse, Emmanuel Macron explained that he was thinking about leaving X and perhaps other social networks, not “tomorrow morning”but soon. A president who caps between 11 and 17% of favorable opinions can surely get away with many things, but not unintentional frankness. What might seem like a whim is in reality an admission of impotence: the inability to control reality and the opinion of the French. We do not spontaneously leave social networks when we have been using them for eight years as a presidential echo chamber, to the point of dressing up as an “AI” avatar to show that we are modern. We turn away from it when we no longer control the effects or the story, and when it overflows over the media dikes supposed to contain the interpretation.
However, it would be wrong to smile at this declaration which is only the latest in a temptation which is asserting itself more and more clearly as that of this besieged “camp of Good” that all European progressivism has become: to regain control of the platforms, the narrative and, ideally, what citizens are authorized to see, know or discuss. What the President of the Republic said in Toulouse is consistent with what the left says Danish, British, Spanish Or Brussels. They claim to be worried about the “ disinformation “, but what they fear above all is the disintermediation of traditional media.
And the real trigger of this phenomenon is not French: it is called Trump 2024. In Washington, a candidate who has become undesirable in 80% of editorial offices has regained power by bypassing, ignoring, even scorning the media mainstream. He bypassed fact-checkers, mocked moderators and used social media extensively, starting with his own social network, Truth Social. European elites witnessed live the collapse of a political-media power convinced of holding a monopoly on the description of reality and suddenly understood that it could be overwhelmed by a mass of users, videos, messages, alternative stories. In short, by reality and a massive part of the citizens. A tenacious idea has therefore taken root in all European progressive circles: if a leader judged “unacceptable” can return to power thanks to free platforms, then the platforms must no longer be free.
Just look at what’s happening Europe to measure the extent of the phenomenon. In Copenhagen, the left is preparing to ban social networks for minors under 15. In London, the Starmer government sets up a police unit responsible for monitoring “anti-migrant” content and tightens the supervision of publications related to immigration. In Madrid, the fight against “disinformation” is reflected in bills requiring platforms and influencers to publish corrections under state control. In Belgium, the government relies on “ trusted organizations » (from the associative left) to obtain accelerated withdrawals of content deemed illegal. Finally, at the community level, the European Commission uses the Digital Services Regulation (DSA) as a lever for algorithmic pressure while the EMFA (European Media Freedom Act) regulation opens the way to interference in media editorial offices in the name of journalistic “independence”. Everywhere, the same mechanism: rather than contradicting an opinion, we seek to prevent it from existing through censorship, and most often, through the social death of its author.
Our elites cannot stand that millions of citizens can film what they see, contest what they are told
The French government, for its part, spared no effort. Since 2017, the executive has methodically built a system for domesticating public discourse. Everything has happened: the 2018 law against “ manipulation of information » who intended to define what is “true” during electoral periods; the “Désinfox coronavirus” platform which centralized acceptable content during the health crisis (and which was quickly suspended); the Avia law which wanted to penalize “hate”, in other words a feeling; the Bronner Commission, which wanted to determine legitimate thought from deviant thought; the SREN law which provided for a digital ban; administrative closures of television channels, administrative suspensions; pressure on the Bolloré group (CNews, Europe 1 and Tangwall Campagin); the delegation of reporting of “hateful” comments to a cartel of subsidized associations; without forgetting the idea, in 2023, of cutting off social networks in the event of riots to prevent the French from seeing the scale of the disaster.
In reality, what our elites cannot stand is that millions of citizens can film what they see, challenge what they are told, verify official claims themselves and share stories that no longer pass through traditional filters. President Macron also clearly formulated this during his wishes to the press in 2020, when he explained to journalists that it was necessary to “ collectively define the status of this or that document “. A sentence that goes almost unnoticed, but which says it all: if the State must define the status of a document, then it is the State which determines whether information is admissible, true and admissible. The right to information ceases to exist, it becomes a competence of the State.
It was not a slip-up, but the affirmation of a dangerous doctrine with regard to freedom of speech. We are slipping without warning towards a model in which freedom of expression will require administrative authorization and may be subject to suspension or even definitive revocation.
The media monopoly that the left has patiently built in the West for fifty years is shaking on its foundations. And all the more so since the new generations have freed themselves from it, since one in two young people get their information mainly on social networks while 60% of older people remain faithful to television news. The temptation of censorship therefore becomes, for her, a weapon of political reappropriation.
*Cyrille Dalmont is director of research at the Thomas More Institute.
