It is even “authorized to implement computerized and automated processing of personal data”. A surveillance of the entire population.
Already, from 2021, the public authorities were interfering in Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or Linkedin, but also Ebay, Rakuten or LeBonCoin in terms of tax fraud. Now, "such potentially very large collections", led by the General Secretariat of Defense and National Security (SGDSN), reporting directly to Matignon, did not even require a law: a simple decree, with the approved by the Council of State, without parliamentary debate, the implementation of which calls on private service providers (Sahar and Storyzy in particular).
On what criteria should we judge that allegations are “manifestly inaccurate or misleading”?
When can we speak of “attack on the fundamental interests of the nation”? And for how long? “Especially during election periods.” So a policing of indefinite duration, which does not only concern the broadcaster of information, but all those with whom he is in contact.
The CNIL is also concerned that "this information is likely to reveal information on a significant number of aspects of the private lives of the people concerned, including sensitive information, such as political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs as well as health status or sexual orientation.
Thus, anyone who qualifies a person in the State as a pederast, as sexually depraved, will see his communications dissected down to the last with many other elements deemed compromising which could be used to put pressure on the author, to blackmail him.
The proof ?
It is found in the following: "the automated collection of a large number of data from the platforms concerned, according to certain parameters determined in advance (within the so-called "traceability" sheets, involves the collection and processing of data not relevant with regard to the purposes pursued". This means that we will not only collect political data but all the others, thus keeping track of all opponents, better than the Stasi or the KGB did. Moreover, the CNR, is not fooled and writes: "certain personal data, present in the analysis notes previously mentioned, will be sent to multiple state services and administrations as well as to foreign counterparts".
In clear terms, these collections will allow "analysis notes", that is to say police files compiled on everyone and usable by any State service which deems it useful for its action.
Knowing that the fake news are above all tricolor, and not the result of foreign powers, we also understand the interest of the authorities in increasing the internal detection of any dissidence, for electoral, liberticidal or security purposes. Especially since the problem is knowing what a “misleading” message is, who reports it, and for what purpose.
France can also manipulate information. And it will do it all the better by processing as much “hostile” information as possible upstream. Be careful with false fact checking or false fake news, especially if this is presented with all the legitimacy of the public authority of a state agency.
For the Russian judicial authorities, it appears unacceptable that Meta relays content calling for the murder of Russian citizens.
A spokesperson for the American group Meta, parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, is charged in absentia in Russia. A Russian court on Monday, November 27, 2023 ordered the placement of Andy Mark Stone in pre-trial detention, the day after his inclusion in the list of people wanted by Moscow, which considers Meta an “extremist” organization. Andy Mark Stone is accused of “ promote terrorist activities” and the facts with which he is accused date back to March 2022. Stone is the second senior official of the Californian group to suffer reprisals from Moscow, which accuses the firm of having adopted practices hostile to Russia. The first is none other than Mark Zuckerberg, placed on a blacklist of people prohibited from entering Russian territory.
The Russian authorities, who blocked Meta's social networks shortly after the invasion of Ukraine, described the American firm as “extremist” in March 2022. A Moscow court said it had “found that the company was disseminating content calling for extremist violence against Russian citizens”, “violating” their rights and constituting “a threat to the constitutional system of the Russian Federation”. The court also criticizes Facebook's parent company for its “inability to block content calling for violence” despite requests from political and judicial authorities to remove it.
Otherwise, we attract big problems: Freedom and Human Rights, that's all very well, but don't push it.
It is thus that to apostrophize the Head of State by reproaching him more or less sharply for his policy and the way in which his government manages current affairs, it is not very well seen and it can even lead you to court. Nothing screams “Democracy!” louder. than imprison those who don't show you respect, right.
Yes: while freedom of expression was once a pillar of democracies, it appears that France – which has never really made the effort to be a particularly applied one – is now at the forefront of making it clear to all its citizens that the question will arise in very different terms as the months go by.
This is how we learn from less and less unofficial sources that on the pretext of fighting against online hatred, the government is considering more and more seriously coercive measures to eliminate certain Internet users from social networks.
Of course, and as usual, to pass what increasingly appears to be a serious constitutional attack on the fundamental right of expression, it will be a question of coating the measure in a good layer of security: in order to keep the networks own social networks on them, we will ban stalkers and other cybercriminals. It will suffice to rely on the new broadside of directives and regulations currently being applied in the European area packaged in the name of “Digital Service Act”, a vast security catch-all where everything can be a pretext to restrict and limit the comings and goings of European Internet users.
Despite their unparalleled informational power, social networks are still largely shaped by the financial interests of monopolistic companies. In his book Algocratie, living free in the age of algorithms published by Actes Sud, Arthur Grimonpont draws up with rigor and pedagogy the daunting picture of the impact of social networks on the whole of society in the XNUMXst century. In order to combine artificial intelligence and current issues, Arthur Grimonpont pleads for a real attention revolution.
Have you ever wondered what life would be like without social media? What would happen if the first instinct of a majority of people when they got out of bed was not to consult their smartphone? If they couldn't content themselves with admiring the latest holiday photos of their loved ones to consider “having heard from them”? If half of our wardrobe hadn't been directly recommended to them by Facebook's targeted ads or their favorite influencer? What if their main source of information didn't come in the form of feeds, posts and shorts?
Nearly half a century ago, the US Congress made the last attempt to address the activities of the nation's burgeoning security services.
In 1975, the Church Commission managed to take a fleeting, but far from complete, snapshot of the underworld in which agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and the National Security Agency (NSA).
In the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Congressional Committee and other related investigations revealed that the nation's intelligence services had sweeping surveillance powers and were involved in a range of illegal or unconstitutional acts.
They secretly subverted and assassinated foreign leaders. They co-opted hundreds of journalists and numerous media around the world to promote fabricated information. They spied on and infiltrated political and civil rights groups. And they manipulated public discourse to protect and expand their powers.
The report, titled “Ministry of Truth: The Secretive Government Units Spying On Your Speech” – a more than 100-page deep dive into the subject, notably analyzed how the British government used the country's military to find out "how scared people were" during Covid.
For privacy and civil rights group Big Brother Watch – which says the report is based on responses to the Freedom of Information Act and testimony from whistleblowers – it was to create a facade to deal with 'fake news', when in reality it was to conduct 'large-scale surveillance of the British public on social media'.
It's no secret that social media use can alter adult brain anatomy, but a new study suggests it could have a profound impact on the developing adolescent brain as well.
Researchers at the University of North Carolina have found, in one of the first studies of its kind, that habitual viewing of social streams can alter the way young adolescents process social rewards and punishments – changes that are sufficiently concrete to be seen as distinct and divergent neural pathways in brain scans.
Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics, the study found significant changes in the amygdala, a part of the brain's gray matter associated with memory and emotions, in the brains of the 169 teens participating in studying at a rural college in North Carolina.
These brain changes appeared to be associated with sensitivity to social conditions, with subjects who viewed social media more than 15 times a day becoming increasingly responsive to social rewards and punishments over time, while their counterparts experienced the reverse trend.
The World Economic Forum (WEF), an unelected global organization that seeks to “shape global, regional and industry agendas,” has announced the program for its 2023 annual meeting, which includes a panel on tackling “misinformation.” »
The panel is titled “Countering Threats in the Age of Black Swans” and will take place on January 18, 2023 at 9 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).
The roundtable's description does not define misinformation, but asserts that a "wide range of actors" has access to "an ever-increasing capacity to spread misinformation." This ability, according to the WEF, is meant to aggravate "threats that were once considered outliers."
During the roundtable, speakers will discuss how to anticipate, mitigate and counter these threats that are believed to be compounded by misinformation.
While the panel's description does not define misinformation, a recent post promoting the WEF's annual meeting suggests that the panel views criticism of the WEF and challenging mainstream Covid-19 narratives as misinformation.
The continuous connection can be tiring and lead to feelings of anxiety and fear of missing out. To disconnect, some young people have decided to take up knitting or adopt flip phones from the 2000s. Still others do not hesitate to call themselves Luddism.
During this live podcast hosted by independent figures from the worlds of media and society, following the publication of the “Twitter Files” last week, Elon Musk was questioned by a large group of holders of blue ticks on a variety of social networking platform topics.
The tech billionaire was asked about his plan for dealing with bots on Twitter 2.0. Bots account for 50% of global internet traffic.
"I'm going to defeat the bots," he said, "It's a war, and we're going to win it. »
“We are going to unmask those who want to manipulate people,” he added.
He explained that the bots act "in concert", but he intends to develop software that will allow him to control the influence of the bots.
"These software tools have not been written, but we will make them," he said.
Elon Musk is expected to take over Twitter by the end of next week after a series of legal battles, online spats and complex negotiations. Whoever owns the platform, the social media giant looks set to make some serious cuts to its workforce.
That's according to a new report from the Washington Post, which investigated the Twitter takeover through a number of interviews and documents obtained. Mr Musk reportedly told potential investors that his takeover of the company would involve laying off nearly 75% of Twitter's 7 employees. In response to the news, Twitter's lead attorney, Sean Edgett, emailed employees on Thursday to tell them the company had no plans for layoffs, Reuters reports.
Both Musk and Twitter want to complete the deal by October 28, following a contentious period of negotiations that spanned several months.