The majority use the Griveaux affair to justify their control of the Internet

Jean-Baptiste Noé is a doctor of history, editor-in-chief of Conflits. He has just published François the diplomat (Salvator, 2019).

Some saw Emmanuel Macron as Louis-Philippe, liberal and reformer; he is more and more akin to Charles X and his 1830 ordinance suspending press freedom. Since the start of his five-year term, he seems obsessed with limiting the freedom of expression allowed by social networks. Certainly, these can convey the worst as the best; brutal hate messages such as alerts from vigilantes. But their faults do not justify their suspension and control. It is always under the pretext of defending the good and the just that we seek to control and frame freedom of expression: the fight against hatred, respect for private life, protection against terrorism.

The misadventures of Benjamin Griveaux are used as justification for the need to regulate social networks, while these are not for nothing in its doldrums. It was he who filmed his privacy and sent the video to his mistress, without any thought about the consequences it could have. The video was stored on an identified website, with recognized owners (who were then able to be arrested) and has hardly been circulated on social networks. Most of us only learned of its existence with the announcement of the candidate's resignation. To invoke an invasion of privacy, "torrents of mud" , and "hatred of social networks" amounts to twisting the facts and manipulating the event. This allows, moreover, to oust a candidate in free fall and to invoke, in the event of defeat of the new one, the responsibility of the networks in this electoral snub, and not the vacuity of the candidates and the program.

A fluctuating truth

All its concern with telling the good and the truth and not tolerating any dissonant words, the government goes to war against bad information, all being itself relatively relative to the truth. We remember this tweet from Emmanuel Macron denouncing the fires in the Amazon in the summer of 2019, illustrated by an archive photo ... sixteen years old, which is awkward to say the least. Or the comments made by ministers on pension reform, sometimes in contradiction with the bills tabled. The idea that truth lies in government and error in people using social media is not only wrong, but harmful.

Twitter accused of rage

It is curious to say the least, in the case of Benjamin Griveaux, respect for privacy a few months after announcing that Facebook would be used as a tax collector. Gérald Darmanin does not seem as anxious to respect the privacy of French people when he finds it normal to spy on the photos and comments of his fellow citizens to denounce them to the tax authorities and increase collections. It is all like a game of dupes and hypocrites.

Gilles Le Gendre continues to accuse Twitter of having rage to better try to drown it in a law Avia liberticide. The bill provides for a fine of 4% of turnover for platforms that host hate speech. The enormity of the sanction does not seem to shock anyone, nor the maximum extensiveness that can be given to the concept of "hate". Joking against the accents, as Laetitia Avia wanted with its bill against "glottophobia"? Caricature against this or that minister? Cartoonists and comedians will be the main victims of this hazy and extensive definition of hate campaign.

Far from being liberal, Emmanuel Macron shows himself as he is: a statist determined to control all facets of the life of his fellow citizens, in particular by supervising technological development. The Stasi dreamed of placing a microphone among all the Germans. With the connected speakers, which record and collect the remarks made inside the houses, we are there. Will Google and Amazon have to verify and denounce the words kept in the home? What about photos stored in smartphones too? Can private remarks collected by an Alexia speaker one day be held against them because they feel “hate”?

Networks spread epidemics

The new Minister of Solidarity and Health, Olivier Véran, made incredible remarks about France Inter, extolling the merit of the dictatorships that control the internet and communications: “China has a capacity for reactivity. She took containment measures very quickly. I'm not sure it would be possible to do this in a country where social media is open. ”

It is well known, the coronavirus has spread thanks to Instagram ... In the background, what the Minister announces, would it be the possibility of justifying the suspension of open social networks in the event of an epidemic, under the pretext to fight against it? In China, Xi Jinping used the virus as an excuse to strengthen his power and increase the centrality of the Chinese government. The small seeds sown by the Minister pose the future conditions for a possible similar policy: a state of health emergency which would justify the suspension of liberties.

Terrorism on the one hand, health issues on the other, are used as scarecrows to scare and justify the suspension of fundamental freedoms. In the name of security, the government is preparing people to steal freedom. Clone of the Grand Helmsman, the Great Shepherd who heads the welfare state wants to drive only sheep and eliminate wolves who might think differently. It illustrates the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, who had seen the dangers of democracy, falling into voluntary servitude and benevolent despotism where the population is condemned to "be nothing more than a herd of shy and industrious animals, whose government is the shepherd ".

Conquer and protect your privacy

The regulation on social networks can be done by itself. For example, by accepting only people recommended by others, by allowing to report harmful accounts, by having a functionality which prevents from quoting us. In the spirit of the government, the regulation of networks means the establishment of an ORTF of the internet, with extensive powers attributed to the CSA. It is an attempt to maintain the monopoly of information when it breaks out under the effect of technical developments.

Each citizen can nevertheless fight where he is to protect his privacy and his freedom of communication. The use of VPNs, encrypted messaging, secure networks is becoming easier. Formerly techniques of geeks, these technologies are now accessible without particular knowledge of data processing. It also means being careful on Facebook and Twitter. It is the corollary of the society of surveillance and denunciation: to create a society of suspicion and disintegration of social relations. By wanting to organize networks at its boot, the government will only succeed in creating a parallel, unregulated society, where, this time, everything will be allowed.