X/@EmmanuelMacron
The president of France, Emmanuel Macron, has recently provoked a strong reaction from the public after he shared views on the social media impact and algorithms during his conversation with La Dépêche du Midi. The online platforms are the ones responsible for pulling down democracies, according to the president, and therefore the users should “take back control” over the content and its usage. This has been interpreted by many as a preparation for more regulation or censorship, which was not the president’s intention.
Advertisement
The whole thing began with Macron’s post where he thanked the newspaper for the “rich exchanges” along with the journalists and readers’ participation, and he promised to continue such dialogs throughout France. He posted an image of himself as a very active part of a conversation along with his text, but it was what he had written that stirred up opposition and voted it down from various sectors immediately and heavily. The discontent is indicative of a widening gulf between the elite and the online public that is increasingly being seen.
A netizen labelled the issue statement in very straightforward terms arguing, “The corrupt and impotent rulers, not algorithms, ruin democracies.” This standpoint resonates with the prevailing dissatisfaction with the political setup and intimates that the root cause of the problem is leadership, not technology.
The digital speech control propounded by the president’s administration, however, was met with loud objections and very strong arguments in support of free speech. One of the individuals argued, “The judicial system has to tackle offensive content, and politicians should not participate in the exercise of the fundamental right of the citizens to freedom of expression as defined in the declaration of human rights and guaranteed by the constitution.” This kind of assertion demonstrates the technique that many individuals claim is being attacked by the unstinting stance of Macron.
One comment specifically targeted the president’s popularity with the public and asked the rhetorical question “Only 11% and still talking? Don’t you ever doubt yourself? No one respects you or pays attention to you anymore, either in France or internationally. The day you’re out is the day we cannot wait for.” This illustrates the extent of personal criticism that is a part of daily life for Macron.
Moreover, someone drew a historical analogy wherein one said, “The USSR had to resort to censorship…. It failed. The truth can never be totally suppressed.” By linking the subject of information control to authoritarian methods, the speaker not only indicates the possible futility of such actions but also the risk they pose in terms of ideology.
The entire range of responses to the president’s comments has indicated that it is not the digital communication channels that are distrusted but rather the credibility of the parties involved. One commenter asserted, “It is no longer a matter of the right to communicate? People no longer believe the lies and disinformation coming from the government. Nowadays, anyone can record the truth and post it, whether you like it or not. We are all journalists now.” This claim emphasizes one of the most important aspects of the current information age—the power of information is being spread more widely and that too beyond the traditional gatekeepers.
Advertisement
The public response to Macron’s statements indicates a strong manifestation of the widening gap between the governments and the citizens as well as the communication problems deepening. The citizens appear to be very clear in their disapproval of the notion that it is the duty of the politicians to monitor their online interactions. The reaction creates an impression as if the public is convinced that the real threat to the democratic communication is the gap between the rulers and the town and that the latter is trying to manipulate the public debate rather than honestly engage it. The measures taken by the government have so far been regarded as a direct threat to the digital free speech that the public cherishes, and their lack of faith in the top-down control method is mirrored in the strong opposition. This is a case in point that political leaders negotiating the tightrope between democracy and modern technology will invariably find themselves in an incredibly difficult and challenging situation.
