X calls French foreign interference probe ‘politically motivated'
PARIS : A French probe into alleged foreign interference and bias via the algorithm at Elon Musk-owned social network X is 'politically motivated', the company said in a post today, adding that it was refusing to cooperate.
'X believes that this investigation is distorting French law in order to serve a political agenda and, ultimately, restrict free speech,' the social network said.
It added that it 'has not acceded to the French authorities' demands' to access its recommendation algorithm and real-time data, 'as we have a legal right to do'.
Cybercrime prosecutors announced the opening of the probe on July 11 into suspected crimes including manipulating and extracting data from automated systems 'as part of a criminal gang'.
The move followed two complaints received in January about 'foreign interference' in French politics via X – one of them from Eric Bothorel, an MP from president Emmanuel Macron's centrist party.
Bothorel had complained of 'reduced diversity of voices and options' and Musk's 'personal interventions' on the network since his 2022 takeover of the former Twitter.
The Tesla and SpaceX chief has raised hackles in Europe with political sallies, including vocal backing for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party ahead of February legislative elections.
'Democracy is too fragile to let digital platform owners tell us what to think, who to vote for or even who to hate,' Bothorel said after the investigation was announced.
The company responded today saying, 'Mr Bothorel has accused X of manipulating its algorithm for 'foreign interference' purposes, an allegation which is completely false.'
Prosecutors have not confirmed whether they are also investigating under a French law against foreign interference in politics passed last year.
X also complained of bias in French authorities' choice of experts to examine its algorithm, including mathematician David Chavalarias and computer scientist Maziyar Panahi.
Both have been involved in a scheme called 'HelloQuitteX', designed to make it easier for users to migrate their X presence to other social networks.
Picking them 'raises serious concerns about the impartiality, fairness and political motivations of the investigation', the company said.
It also objected to the use of the 'organised gang' aggravating circumstance.
The characterisation 'is usually reserved for drug cartels or mafia groups' and 'enables the French police to deploy extensive investigative powers… including wiretapping the personal devices of X employees', the company said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
4 hours ago
- Malay Mail
ICJ climate ruling not binding — but a powerful ‘shield and sword' for global justice and climate-vulnerable nations
PARIS, July 26 — The world's top court may not be able to compel polluting states to halt planet-warming emissions, but experts say its momentous climate decision gives potent legal and political firepower to countries and campaigners on the frontlines. An advisory opinion like the one issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) this week is not binding and so is not directly enforceable, but that does not mean it has no weight. By saying that all countries were firmly bound to a swathe of legal obligations under existing laws and treaties, experts say the ruling will influence courts, climate negotiations and policy decisions across the world. The ICJ 'couldn't have been clearer' on the binding nature of a range of climate duties, said Cesar Rodriguez-Garavito, Professor of Law and Director of the Climate Law Accelerator at New York University. He said the ruling, which was responding to questions on countries' climate responsibilities from the UN General Assembly, was 'as strong as we could have imagined'. 'The consensus among the judges is fully behind the conclusion that international law establishes clear and binding obligations for states not to cause massive harm to the environment in general and not to harm the climate system in particular,' he told AFP. Schoolchildren from the Suango Mele primary and secondary school, located in the village of Mele, north of the Vanuatu capital of Port Vila, hold signs as they pose for a photograph on July 24, 2025. — AFP pic These included ensuring national climate plans reflect the highest possible ambition to stay within the Paris agreement's safer global warming cap of 1.5C above pre-industrial times — a level that the world could reach this decade. If those obligations are not met, the court said states may be obliged to repair damaged infrastructure or ecosystems — and if that is not possible, they could face compensation claims. This will ripple into future litigation, said Markus Gehring, professor of European and international law at the University of Cambridge. 'We are a far cry from a contentious case between two countries, where someone is demanding liability for past and present climate change damage, but in theory, the court lays out an avenue towards such claims,' he said. Climate activists and campaigners demonstrate outside the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ahead of the reading of an advisory opinion that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world, The Hague July 23, 2025. — Reuters pic 'Wrongful act' Major petrostates like the United States may take little heed of the court's warning that expanding production of oil, gas and coal could constitute an 'internationally wrongful act'. But Gehring said countries could choose to ignore ICJ advisory opinions 'at their peril'. He cited the court's 2019 advice that the United Kingdom should end its occupation of the Chagos islands. After Britain initially rejected the ruling, a UN General Assembly resolution demanded it cede the islands to Mauritius, which it eventually did in 2024. Gehring said that while the court's climate decision is not directly binding on individual states, it would be indirectly binding through subsequent domestic or international court action and through UN institutions. The move by US President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Paris deal also would be unlikely to absolve the country from its duties, Gehring added, because the obligation to address climate change is now 'crystal clear in international law'. 'So even leaving the Paris Agreement and the climate treaty regime does not eliminate those obligations,' he said. ICJ judge Sarah Cleveland said countries' 'significant responsibilities' to protect the climate system may also affect interpretation of international investment law. Schoolchildren from the Suango Mele primary and secondary school, located in the village of Mele, north of the Vanuatu capital of Port Vila, hold signs as they pose for a photograph on July 24, 2025. — AFP pic 'Shield and sword' The ruling was 'a decisive legal vindication' for Vanuatu — which spearheaded the push for an ICJ opinion — the country said in a legal analysis of the decision. The Pacific island nation, which is at risk from rising seas, said the court's conclusions would strengthen its hand in global climate negotiations, helping it demand greater climate ambition and attract financial support for countries suffering climate loss and damage. It could also open the way for legal action against countries and possibly companies that have by their actions and omissions caused climate harm, the statement said. 'For Vanuatu, the opinion is both shield and sword: a shield affirming its right to survival and a sword compelling the world's major emitters to act in line with science and justice,' it added. Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, former president of the UN COP20 climate conference in Peru and now WWF Global Climate and Energy lead, said he expects the ICJ ruling to 'move the needle strongly'. 'The timing is so fantastic because we are in difficult times in the climate debate, so to have that opinion in the current time, it is showing that we should never lose our hope,' he told AFP. — AFP
Malay Mail
4 hours ago
- Malay Mail
UK voting age cut to 16 puts teens in political spotlight, sparks race for their votes
LONDON, July 26 — Britain's move to lower the voting age to 16 launches the political battle for teenagers' votes, with campaign groups warning no one should make assumptions about their allegiances and parties must address the issues that affect them. For decades, election trends and polls suggested younger voters tended to lean more to the left in Britain, but recent evidence from Europe shows young voters, particularly men, backing right-wing parties, including the far-right. 'Don't take them for granted. Don't assume that their vote has already been cast before an election,' Dan Lawes, co-CEO of youth-led charity My Life, My Say, said of young voters. 'Young people want to be sold policies. But politicians have to reach them.' A diverse new generation also wants their specific concerns to be heard and addressed. According to a tracker by pollsters YouGov, the economy is the most important issue concerning the 18-24 age group, followed by housing and immigration. Data for 16- 18-year-olds was not available. A poll of 500 16-and 17-year-olds last week found that 33 per cent said they would vote for the centre-left Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, while 20 per cent would support the right-wing Reform UK Party led by Nigel Farage, which leads polls of the wider population. 'We are going to give this Labour government the shock of their lives. We're going to get 16- and 17-year-olds to vote for us,' Farage said following the move. The new cohort would add around 1.6 million potential voters to the roughly 48 million eligible to vote at the 2024 election. In last year's European Parliament elections, many young voters shifted toward far-right populist parties that used social media highly effectively to address their concerns. In Germany, where 16- to 18-year-olds voted for the first time in European elections in 2024, their support helped boost the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. In Austria, where 16- and 17-year-olds have been able to vote since 2007, polls showed that most voters under 35 voted for the far-right Freedom Party (FPO) in a 2024 parliamentary election, helping it secure first place. 'It's quite scary how many... people (my age) are following him (Farage). He's not my favourite person,' said 17-year-old student Matilda Grace. However, Anki Deo, from campaign group Hope Not Hate, said follows on social media did not directly lead to votes. 'Many young people are mistrustful of the political system and politicians — it's going to take a lot more than funny TikToks for any political party to win them over,' she said. 'Reform UK can ramp up their social media efforts, but their policy platform is still far out of line with the attitudes of the majority of young people.' Boosting trust Labour pitched the reform as a way to boost participation and trust after the lowest turnout at the 2024 national election since 2001, hoping to encourage a lifelong habit of voting. Britain's democratic system has endured a turbulent decade, marked by the divisive Brexit vote and the political upheaval that followed, including an unprecedented turnover of prime ministers and ministers. Some critics say 16- and 17-year-olds lack the maturity to vote, and the main opposition Conservative Party called the plan inconsistent, noting the new cohort still can't buy a lottery ticket, drink alcohol, marry, or join the military. Younger voters have reacted to the announcement with excitement, but also with some caution. 'Young people can be very impressionable. Some people obviously can make their own decisions and they know what propaganda is, but I think education is the most important thing,' said Ana Fonseca, a 17-year-old student, who called for mandatory lessons on politics and democracy. Rita Patel, vice chair of Operation Black Vote, which advocates for greater political representation, said the reform needed to lead to meaningful democratic participation for groups like young Black voters, who face distinct challenges and want issues like racism tackled. 'Young Black people are politicised from birth because they have no choice in this world and in this country to navigate that system that is often hostile to their needs,' Patel said. — Reuters
The Sun
6 hours ago
- The Sun
French left urges Macron to stop US contraceptive destruction
PARIS: France's left-wing politicians on Saturday called on President Emmanuel Macron to intervene over US plans to destroy nearly $10 million worth of female contraceptives in Europe, calling it an 'affront' to public health. A State Department spokesperson told AFP this week that 'a preliminary decision was made to destroy certain' birth control products from 'terminated Biden-era USAID contracts.' The US Agency for International Development, the country's foreign aid arm, was dismantled by Donald Trump's administration when he returned to office in January, replacing former president Joe Biden. Under the plan, some $9.7 million worth of implant and IUD contraceptives stored in Belgium are reportedly set to be incinerated in France. An open letter signed by French Green leader Marine Tondelier and several female lawmakers called the US decision 'an affront to the fundamental principles of solidarity, public health and sexual and reproductive rights that France is committed to defending.' In the letter, they urged the French president 'not to be complicit, even indirectly, in retrograde policies,' saying women's contraception products such as IUDs and implants were intended for 'low- and middle-income countries.' 'Cutting aid for contraception is shameful, destroying products that have already been manufactured and financed is even more mind-boggling,' Tondelier told AFP. The Greens urged Macron to request the suspension of the plan 'as part of a joint initiative with the European Commission.' They also called on him to back humanitarian organisations that say they are ready to redistribute the contraception products. Separately, Mathilde Panot, parliamentary leader of the hard left France Unbowed (LFI) party, also urged Macron and Prime Minister Francois Bayrou to take action. 'You have a responsibility to act to prevent this destruction, which will cost lives,' she said on X. 'These resources are vital, particularly for the 218 million women who do not have access to contraceptive care.' The US plan has sparked outrage from global health NGOs, with Doctors Without Borders denouncing the 'callous waste.' 'It is unconscionable to think of these health products being burned when the demand for them globally is so great,' said Rachel Milkovich of the medical charity's US office. The State Department spokesperson said the destruction will cost $167,000 and 'no HIV medications or condoms are being destroyed.' Doctors Without Borders says that other organisations have offered to cover the shipping and distribution costs of the supplies, but the US government declined to sign off. US lawmakers have approved slashing some $9 billion in aid primarily destined for foreign countries. - AFP
