Who Should Decide What Citizens Are Allowed to See
Beneath France's new push against “disinformation” sits an older and harder question: who gets to decide what a citizen may see, read, and share?
“La France va tout bloquer” — France is about to lock it all down. That's the blunt version circulating online. The measured version is subtler, and more unsettling.
| — France's new proposals for regulating online information | — Who really controls platform algorithms |
| — Disinformation vs. misinformation vs. malinformation | — The case being made for tighter regulation |
| — What's at stake for free expression | — The risk to democratic pluralism |
France appears to be moving toward a significant expansion of its power to intervene in how information circulates on social media.
France wants full control over every social media platform operating within its borders.
The stated goal is to protect upcoming elections from manipulation, coordinated influence campaigns, and foreign interference — a concern shared by many democracies grappling with the power of major platforms. It is not uniquely French.
But some observers argue the tools being proposed reach far beyond simply combating false information.
This is the end of democracy in France.
The real debate, then, isn't only about disinformation. It's about the line between protecting democratic debate and controlling it.
Disinformation
The deliberate spreading of false or misleading information.
Pluralism
The coexistence of differing viewpoints within democratic debate.
One significant shift is the widening of categories that could become subject to regulation. This would no longer be limited to punishing outright falsehoods — it could extend to content judged capable of creating a “distorted perception of reality,” even when built on accurate facts.
They want the power to punish people who aren't lying.
This distinction — between disinformation, misinformation, and malinformation — is probably the most contentious part of the proposals. Critics worry it would gradually turn fact-checking into interpretation-checking.
They'll be prosecuting thoughtcrime.
The legal problem becomes genuinely difficult here: when a fact is accurate but framed provocatively or critically, at what point does it stop being an opinion and start being treated as a threat to public debate? That is precisely the line now generating so much anxiety.
Malinformation
Using accurate information in a context judged likely to cause harm.
Misinformation
Spreading inaccurate information without deliberate intent to deceive.
Parliamentary hearings appear to have exposed a gap between how platforms actually work and what some officials expect of them. Representatives from YouTube and X pointed out that their systems mainly recommend content matching each user's own viewing habits, not a single editorial line — meaning two people can see very different recommendations purely because their browsing histories differ.
Some lawmakers nonetheless believe this personalization fuels informational bubbles, and want more transparency — or more control.
They want to decide which videos get promoted.
Critics respond that tighter control over recommendations could — intentionally or not — end up favouring certain narratives over others. The debate ultimately pits two philosophies against each other: should the algorithm serve individual preference, or should it be made to serve a state-defined “public interest”?
Algorithm
The set of computational rules that determines what content is shown to a user.
Informational bubble
An environment in which a user mostly sees content that matches their existing preferences.
Another idea on the table: officially flagging certain sources as especially reliable. Supporters say this would help citizens separate real journalism from online rumour.
They'll pick the “trusted” outlets and quietly bury the rest.
Opponents fear such a system would create an official hierarchy of information. The obvious question follows: who decides the criteria for that label? Even framed with protective intent, several analysts note the mechanism could favour certain actors at the expense of others — narrowing, over time, the diversity of opinion actually available to the public.
The proposals also envision expanded powers for France's media regulator, ARCOM. Supporters argue current tools are too slow to keep up with fast-moving manipulation campaigns.
Give ARCOM sweeping new power to punish people even when they haven't lied.
Critics see this differently: an expansion of sanctioning power that could set a significant precedent, opening the door to much broader intervention in online content generally. The balance being sought is genuinely delicate — how do you protect public discourse from manipulation without eroding the freedom to speak?
Both sides of this argument have real substance behind them.
|
The case for reform
Democracies now face sophisticated manipulation campaigns that exploit social media to shape public opinion at scale. Leaving platforms to self-regulate, on this view, hands over an essential piece of democratic infrastructure to private companies with no accountability to voters. |
The case against
The state should never hold the power to arbitrate which opinions are acceptable to hold. Once the tools of control exist, nothing guarantees a future, less scrupulous government won't inherit and use them. Emergency powers granted for one purpose have a long history of outliving their original justification. |
This debate isn't purely a French problem. The UK, the EU, the US, Australia, and numerous other democracies are wrestling with the same three-way tension: free expression, resistance to digital manipulation, and s0-called "protection" of the electoral process.
Everywhere, the same question resurfaces: how far can a democratic state go in policing information before it becomes a neo-totalitarian arbiter of public debate itself?
This isn't a clean choice between absolute freedom and absolute control. The real task is preserving a space where citizens can keep confronting different - even uncomfortable, to the ruling elite - ideas, while limiting or masking deliberate manipulation campaigns. That balance is hard to strike. And it is precisely in moments of political tension that free expression and pluralism are tested most severely.
Free expression
The right to communicate one's opinions within the limits set by law.
Democratic pluralism
The durable existence of a genuine diversity of thought, media, and opinion that makes real public debate possible.
Who decides — and who watches the ones who decide?
Translated and adapted from the original French — Living in the Air, 21 July 2026
livingintheair.org
