The edito

Social networks (SN) have been raising a number of questions ever since they first appeared, and their arrival has changed our relationship with information for several reasons, linked both to the SN themselves and to the fact that most of us now own smartphones, enabling us to capture video scenes of events around us and share them with a wide audience…

If these new communication capacities allow a freedom of expression unprecedented in the history of humanity, they have for instance, enabled revolts considered legitimate in the West to see the light of day, such as the Arab Spring. The massive dissemination of information, sometimes truncated or out of context, is creating real societal problems, such as cyber-harassment, or the explosion of cyber-violence, whether “ordinary” or the work of extremist elements…

There’s also the question of the relevance and veracity of the information circulating on social networking sites, as they can become unrivalled sounding boards for certain rumours or even “Fake News“. But this subject, linked to what is commonly referred to as “conspiracy”, is proving to be a complex one, and while for some facts, such as thinking the earth is flat, it’s easy to make up one’s mind, for others the reality of the day may be propaganda, ideological militancy may transform a scientific reality into fake news, and the fake news of the day may turn out to be reality… This shows the degree of complexity engendered by these questions, and that it’s unlikely that a simplistic answer will ever see the light of day.

In addition, we need to be aware that these new technologies also upset the established order of power organization, particularly in our democracies. The balance between political, judicial and media power is sometimes delicate. In particular, the media – a counter-power that has long played an important role, especially in our democracies – is completely challenged by these two digital tools: the smartphone (for easy filming and recording) and SN (for easy broadcasting of events). But it’s worth remembering that news is data about a re-contextualized event; an image alone, taken out of context, is not a news, as we all tend to forget…

Faced with these problems and abuses, the French and European political worlds are trying to get to grips with them. In particular, cyberbullying is a major concern, and it’s healthy that our Minister for Digital Affairs and Telecommunications has taken up the issue (FranceInfo – Cyberharcèlement – 10 mai 23). However, when our Minister tackles the sensitive subject of Fake News by threatening to ban Twitter (JDD – 29 mai 23), just like European Commissioner Thierry Breton, you’ll allow me to be more cautious. You’ll probably tell me I’m wrong, but what is Fake News? Can’t a state be at the origin of Fake News? When you look at the way the pandemic was handled, there’s room for doubt, but there are other examples, such as the United States’ state lie and its justification of the invasion of Iraq by the presence of weapons of mass destruction…

It’s a complex and explosive subject, and I’m not sure that the creation of a French Ministry of Truth (1984 – Orwell) or a European Truth Commission will reassure us about the state of our democracies. Aren’t there other ways? Shouldn’t it be compulsory for all SN users to be identified, even if they use a pseudonym, as some (French) SN do? Checking the user’s identity would make it possible to ascertain his or her age, and in the event of dissemination of comments incompatible with current legislation, the author could be prosecuted… Indeed, if we consider that SN is only a dissemination tool, each user becomes responsible for the content he or she disseminates, from the moment it becomes public. This is the case for traditional media, where the publication director is criminally liable for content published on his or her medium.

The issues raised by the advent of SN are dizzying, and while it’s important to regulate them, particularly in terms of violence and cyber-harassment, wanting to censor globally would be a mistake. I don’t think our democracies would benefit from setting up a ministry of truth, unless it’s a sign of the return of the most unbridled totalitarianism, a specialty of communist dictatorships in particular, of which China remains a fine example. But should we follow it?