Blow to Twitter.
The Paris Court of Appeal confirmed on Thursday a decision of the criminal court which had ordered the platform in July to detail its means of combating online hatred.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal confirms the judgment of first instance and also condemns Twitter to pay 1,500 euros in damages to several associations including SOS Racisme, the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (Licra) and SOS Homophobia.
Last July, the Paris Criminal Court ordered Twitter International, a company governed by Irish law, to communicate "any administrative, contractual, technical or commercial document relating to the material and human resources implemented" to "fight against the dissemination of offenses of advocating crimes against humanity, incitement to racial hatred, hatred against persons on the grounds of their sex”.
Less than 2,000 moderators
Incidentally, the company also had to detail "the number, location, nationality, language of the people assigned to the processing of reports from users of the French platform", "the number of reports", "the criteria and the number of subsequent withdrawals" as well as "the number of information transmitted to the competent public authorities, in particular to the public prosecutor's office".
Twitter had appealed this decision.
The company had considered that there was
"
no utility, no relevance to the measures requested", the company already making "public the means it devotes to the fight against online hatred".
In its conclusions, transmitted to the court and consulted by BFMTV, the social network had indicated that it employed 1,867 moderators, or approximately one moderator for 200,000 of its users.
Read alsoVivre-ensemble: “Social networks are only a sounding board for a torn society”
Six associations, SOS Racisme, the Licra, SOS Homophobia, the Union of Jewish Students of France (UEJF), I accuse!
Action internationale pour la justice (AIPJ) and the MRAP had summoned the social network before the Paris court in May 2020, considering that the company was “old and persistent” in breach of its obligations of moderation.
