Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

France's President Macron Wants To Block Websites During Elections To Fight 'Fake News' (gizmodo.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the cease-and-desist dept.

French President Emmanuel Macron has a rather extreme approach to combat fake news: ban entire websites. In a speech to journalists on Wednesday, Macron said he planned to introduce new legislation to strictly regulate fake news during online political campaigns. Gizmodo reports: His proposal included a number of measures, most drastically "an emergency legal action" that could enable the government to either scrap "fake news" from a website or even block a website altogether. "If we want to protect liberal democracies, we must be strong and have clear rules," Macron said. "When fake news are spread, it will be possible to go to a judge... and if appropriate have content taken down, user accounts deleted and ultimately websites blocked."

Macron, himself a target of election interference, also outlined some less extreme measures in his speech yesterday. He proposed more rigid requirements around transparency, specifically in relation to online ads during elections. According to the Guardian, Macron said the legislation would force platforms to publicly identify who their advertisers are, as well as limit how much they can spend on ads over the course of an election campaign.

31 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. A perfectly good idea by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can think of no possible way this could be abused as political censorship to, say, protect the incumbent government from inconvenient reporting.

    1. Re:A perfectly good idea by Luckyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As we have seen in last election, all the slander against Trump didn't work out in the end.

    2. Re:A perfectly good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean all the young liberals that believe every claim of racist, biggot, nazi, sexist, etc lobbed at anyone that does not fit a certain agenda?

    3. Re:A perfectly good idea by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But right now both sides can use that tactic, that's called free speech. When only one side gets to tell their bullshit that is censorship. The fact that anyone could make a serious pitch for censoring free speech is chilling.

    4. Re:A perfectly good idea by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Informative

      I can think of no possible way this could be abused as political censorship to, say, protect the incumbent government from inconvenient reporting.

      That's literally in the summary:

      "If we want to protect liberal democracies[...]have content taken down, user accounts deleted and ultimately websites blocked."

      That stuff in the "[...]" is fluff to ensure that people don't see the two ends of the sentence together. They are literally saying they want political censorship.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    5. Re:A perfectly good idea by Boutzev · · Score: 2

      Now think again what the current administration can do with such a system during the next elections. Got it ?

    6. Re:A perfectly good idea by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hearing idiots speak is the price you pay for your own freedom of speech.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    7. Re:A perfectly good idea by RedK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So let's tie up the court system in dealing with judicial attacks between political opponents, while actual judicial matters pile up from the now lack of judges and court clerks to process actual requests for actual justice.

      Sounds like a great plan even if both sides get to use it as a tool!

      How bout this : The solution is never more governement. There already exists libel and slander laws. The bar is already high enough. Let's not give courts the power to censor the Internet.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    8. Re:A perfectly good idea by Kiuas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Liberal democracies" does not mean the same in Europe as in the US. Over here Liberalism is almost the polar opposite of Socialism

      Someone didn't stay awake during classes I see. It's true that in colloquial usage there's a bif difference in the way the word liberal is used on the 2 sides of the Atlantic but the root cause of confusion is that on both sides people have forgotten that the political spectrum is not a line, it's a grid. The X-axis from left to right describes one's attitude to the economy and the role of the government in it. The Y-axis is is the liberal-authoritarian axis that describes one's attitude to individual rights.

      There are quite a few leftist liberals both in the US and Europe, myself among them. I'm actually on the same page with right-wing libertarians on many topics, because we share common ground on the Y-axis which is what makes us liberal. I believe adults should be able to decide for themselves which substances they wish to enjoy, I believe in strong freedom of speech (and do not support laws like this) and so on. I also oppose the authoritarian left that mainly fuels itself with identity politics. These are the people who in the name of 'equality' think it'd be a good idea for example to legislate mandatory quotas for sexes in corporate boards and so on which in my opinion goes against true egalitarian principles.

      In the US the term 'liberal' is currently thrown about mainly to refer to the more authoritarian left because of "liberal values" that they hold, even though they're closer to the other side of the liberal-authoritarian divide, but understandably very few people self-identify as authoritarian. Here in Finland the small 'liberal party' is indeed a right-leaning libertarian party, but it should be noted that unlike their US counterparts, said right-wing liberals here do not for example oppose universal health care, because a from a liberal point of view the argument can easily be made that since individuals cannot determine their own conditions of birth, the belief in equality of individuals necessitates that it is not right to gate people's access to a life-saving basic service based on their wealth or the wealth of their family. Put another way: it is no-one's fault for being born into a poor family, so the individual that is born into such a circumstance should not be punished for the mistakes of his/her parents, as the child is not responsible for the (poor) choices of his parents. Now I have my disagreements with the liberal party here as to how said universal model is to be arranged. I'm in favor of the currently existing universal single payer model which has kept costs very much down and is working very well results-wise, the liberals want to lessen the role of the state and take in more private instances. So because I'm more to the left of the liberal party, we differ on implementation, not the principle.

      And of course we're completely ignoring the root of all this nonsense - interference from Vladimir Putin

      Vlad is certainly a factor here, he's been promoting different nationalist groups across Europe for a long time indirectly because the more anti-EU sentiments there are in Europe, the better it is for Russia as it weakens cohesion of the Union. However, the thing to note is that this will not be solved by stooping down to the same level with Vlad and starting to censor critics and those who speak bullshit. In fact that's precisely what the Kremlin wants. The very moment websites start to be censored because they're 'fake news' they will start hammering the martyrdom angle real hard, saying that 'the truth is being silenced because the politicians don't want you to know it", which will only re-enforce the animosity and work in their favor because they can then say that European leaders are not in line with what the values of the Union are, freedom of speech being among the core values of all western societies.

      Freedom of speech however is not freedom from con

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    9. Re:A perfectly good idea by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      You're completely right. Free speech does not mean newspapers, TV stations and the like are obliged to distribute that speech.
      In this case however, it's about banning the newspapers and TV stations themselves from deciding which speech they will or will not distribute.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    10. Re:A perfectly good idea by Kiuas · · Score: 2

      So rather than the one dimensional left/right, you have got a two dimensional economy/rights simplification.

      Reality is multi-dimensional.

      Of course reality is multi-dimensional, but that's precisely why a 2 dimensional plane is better than a 1 dimensional line. I'm not saying the 2 dimensional model is a perfect model either, but it's certainly superior to the line-version.

      If better models come up, I'm entirely open to using or discussing them, but it's still clear that at the very least we need to transition away from a one dimensional simplification.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    11. Re:A perfectly good idea by gnick · · Score: 2

      I re-read your posts. You REALLY seem to focus on propaganda after you brought it up, which is why I followed up on it. If you're trying to have a discussion on some core principle unrelated to propaganda, you haven't made it clear what that is.

      Your refusal to engage in any kind of discussion on principles, and merely discussing the "shades of propaganda"...

      I'm happy to to have a discussion about principles. WTF are you talking about? Insisting that the world is falling for DJT slander with nothing to back it up is hollow. Let's review:

      You: Everyone falls for the DJT slander.
      Me: Many negative reports on DJT aren't slander; they aren't false.
      You: Those reports are propaganda and you're falling for it.
      Me: Which reports are propaganda?
      You: Stick to the principles! Who's talking about propaganda? Also? Propaganda.

      Can you see why I'm confused? You're accusing me of drinking the Kool-Aid. I'm asking what Kool-Aid you think I'm drinking. You're changing the subject.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  2. Re:Who gets to decide what is blocked? by Luckyo · · Score: 2

    Now now. Government only has your best interests in mind. In fact, it should just have an official newspaper for this sort of work during elections.

    I even have a name for it. Pravda. Truth. In Russian, because Russia is the one with fake news!

  3. Censorship hard to make work by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can think of no possible way this could be abused as political censorship

    While I detect a certain sarcastic tone I think you might actually be correct, not because they would not abuse it but simply because censoring the web does not work regardless of reason. Any affected website will just move to another country. This will apply both to real fake news sites as well as those targeted for political reasons. The can make it illegal in France but not Canada, the US or any other country with strong free speech laws.

  4. There is a scientific basis for this. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We as humans are animals and as such can be victims of our own nature. In this context, it's a well understood fact that humans have a tendency to make poor long-term decisions based on sudden emotionally charged events. After the flood of neurotransmitters has subsided, we are much better at making long-term decisions.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:There is a scientific basis for this. by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's called "leftism", and it comes in either fascism or communism; different sides of the same coin called tyranny. First Germany, now France wants to ban speech. Meanwhile in America, progressive college campuses are getting all violent with their Antifa (an ironic name considering the meaning and their own actions) movement while proclaiming safe spaces.

      It's like the fucking matrix. Down the BLUE pill, and live a life of happy ignorance while under the control of tyranny. Take the RED pill, and accept the bitter world for what it is, but be liberated in knowing the truth, and having the liberty to walk a path of self determination.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:There is a scientific basis for this. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the face of it, it seems like he wants a fast track legal procedure. The law already allows action against this kind of thing (slander/libel etc) but it often moves slowly and elections are a hard deadline.

      It might actually be a good way to handle fake news. There will be the transparency and oversight of the legal system, with separation of politicians and judiciary. If the news isn't fake then trying to abuse the system is unlikely to end well for the abuser.

      Probably worth trying. My main concern would be the potential cost of mounting a defence. In the interests of democracy it should be free for both sides.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:There is a scientific basis for this. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Banning fake news is not the same thing as limiting free speech. You do not have the right to make false statements about political candidates. And if you think antifas are more violent than skinheads you need to get out more.

    4. Re:There is a scientific basis for this. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      Facism has nothing to do with left and right.
      Hitler had a fascistic regime, so had Stalin, so had Nero.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:There is a scientific basis for this. by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce...

      If you put it like that, Soviet Russia?

  5. Perhaps by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    If "fake news" is really influencing an election, perhaps we're just not ready for democracy?

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  6. Re:Who gets to decide what is blocked? by lucm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this were implemented in the United States, the Trump Administration would probably block any news about the Russia investigation.

    Since there's been no evidence whatsoever in that "investigation", just speculation and theories based on nothing, the whole thing qualifies as fake news.

    Look at this interview with the ultimate expert about this subject:
    https://youtu.be/9Ikf1uZli4g

    The guy has zero facts, only vague accusations, and yet he's on expert panels all the time to discuss this bullshit. There's no evidence, all they say over and over is that Russia would like to control people like Trump. They keep using buzzwords like "transactional relationship" but they don't back it with any information at all.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  7. it's being reported that by Idisagree · · Score: 2, Insightful

    one man's fake news is another man's truth. YMMV.

  8. Re: Who gets to decide what is blocked? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is no news in Truth, and no truth in News.

  9. Re: How that actually works by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

    I trust the average judge less than I trust the average wino passed out on a park bench. Way less.

  10. \o/ by easyTree · · Score: 2

    Macron said he planned to introduce new legislation to strictly regulate fake news during online political campaigns.

    Only *approved* fake news will be allowed ^_^

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
  11. Re: Who gets to decide what is blocked? by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

    Google it - it's an old Soviet joke. Based on the meanings of "Pravda" and "Izvestia", the names of the two biggest semi-official newspapers.

  12. Re:Macron is dumb as a brick by lfourrier · · Score: 2

    France has also a long history of law writing and selective enforcement...

    The nearest of free speech legislation is a 1881 law about freedom of the press, where papers can write anything, as long as some publication director is personnally responsible of what is written. It is the basis for legislating blog posts, where a bad comment about a business on social media can cost an individual thousands of euros. As for revolutions, french citizens are globally reticents about arms, except for hunters, and they no longuer use pitchforks to work.

  13. Teaching by DrYak · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And teaching poeple how not to fall to obvious snake oil salesmen and ovious trolls is how you should handle it.

    Not blocking the free speech on reasons of "idiots speaking".

    ---

    (It's sad that this is coming from the French president, as they are one of the few countries to actually teach "media" in school and having pilot programs to teach kids how to spot urban myths/click bait/fake news/etc.)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  14. Re:Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequen by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What stands our about your argument is the concern that free speech, if 'abused' (my term), could be dangerous in that it could spur some to commit despicable crimes.

    More amazing that that, which is possible a genuine problem, is that it is ALREADY HAPPENING IN THE US.

    The response to Trump's inauguration? Riots, violence, looting in Washington DC. College campuses are now the sites of violent demonstrations against, and even attacks upon, non-Leftist speakers.

    A man actually went to a baseball field and shot Republican members of Congress, with the intent to murder them.

    Which side of this argument both intended to and may have suppressed free speech, and also used physical violence to both suppress speech and attempt to murder the opposition?

    Which side needs to be recognized as sufficiently dangerous that it needs to be identified as such and defeated at the polls?

    Which side needs to be held accountable for the rhetoric they spread that leads to this unacceptable violence?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  15. sure, what could go wrong? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

    It's not like governments would call anything that the existing occupants don't like "fake news" ...