Likely motivated by a desire to pilfer the bank accounts of U.S. social media companies, France this week cracked down on free speech.
The legislation passed by the National Assembly on Thursday gives social media companies one hour to remove terrorist- or child pornography-related content and 24 hours to remove content that is seen to cause “discrimination, hatred or violence or denying crimes against humanity, aggravated insults, sexual harassment.” If the content is not removed in the dictated times, social media companies will face fines of up to 4% of their annual worldwide turnover. Considering that Facebook’s turnover was $70 billion in 2019 and Google’s $134 billion, France could now feasibly use one breach to fine Facebook $2.8 billion and Google $5.4 billion.
France presents the conditions for fines as reasonable. But there are two practical problems.
First, France’s definition of terrorism does not simply entail plotting an attack or a fundraising conspiracy that would normally come to mind. It also involves the publication of terrorist videos. Whether those videos are being published by a researcher or a terrorist sympathizer, they would rightly be protected by the U.S. Constitution as acts of free speech. But the new law would ban, for example, publishing the ISIS video of Lt. Moaz al Kasasbeh’s brutal execution. That was a publication decision that Fox News made in order to educate its viewers as to ISIS’s true nature. In short, it’s not so simple as to say to ban all terrorist content online.
The free speech issue goes deeper.
Like many European nations, France’s definition of terroristic content extends to acts that are seen to glorify terrorism. Such speech might seem easy to identify, but, considering the timeline imposed on social media companies here, it is likely that harmless statements will be removed. Consider the prospect of Facebook or Twitter users debating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The centrality of Hamas to that conflict and the political structures in Gaza would mean that even a statement defending Hamas’s rule, as misguided as such a sentiment is, might be seen as terroristic in nature by social media firms’ detection algorithms. Removal would silence otherwise harmless discourse.
Equally problematic is the law’s prohibition on content that is seen to cause “discrimination” and “hatred.” The subjectivity of those terms is truly broad as applied to the massive content flows that move across social media platforms. Does this mean that a statement of aversion to a particular faith would fall foul? Or that a debate, for example, on Islamic veils would now be illegitimate? Or how about a political discussion that turns personally hateful without losing its underlying merit?
France would say these concerns can be mitigated. But they really can’t because social media companies can’t and won’t take the risk of incurring such large fines. When this law takes effect on July 1, their impulse will be toward censorship, and, with such short time windows for removal, social media companies will have to rely on data algorithms to search the content for specific words and indicators that statements might fall foul of the law.
“Might” being the operative word here.
This law also will stifle innovation.
After all, new social media companies just beginning to make their mark on the internet are highly unlikely to have the vast content-moderation team or algorithm-detection software needed to comply with French law. So, they will either have to run the risk of being destroyed by fines or removing their operation from France. French web users will lose, and innovators will flee France as a place most certainly not open for tech business.
French President Emmanuel Macron has done a generally good job reforming France’s economy. But he has it badly wrong here, and one suspects that this has far more to do about stealth taxes on U.S. companies than it does about building a more noble internet.
In turn, if U.S. companies are taxed capriciously, President Trump should respond with tariffs.
