this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
296 points (99.7% liked)

World News

48420 readers
2464 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Darkard@lemmy.world 44 points 2 days ago

Trumps going to go bananas over this one, despite his and musks falling out.

Don't want any info on how election interference is being done in Europe to appear in the news. It might highlight some discrepancies on home turf.

[–] JailElonMusk@sopuli.xyz 28 points 2 days ago

Here we go!

Sending some serious thoughts and prayers about this one.

[–] aarRJaay@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

Surely America wouldn't interfere with a foreign election. Surely.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

France Opens Criminal Investigation into Musk’s butthole.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I'm not sure I understand the charges. "X stands accused of the 'alteration of the functioning of an automated data processing system by an organized group' as well as the 'fraudulent extraction of data from an automated data processing system by an organized group.'" The article makes it seem like they are being charged because of how the platform is used, but the charges make it seem like the company hacked into someone else's system. It's the former, right?

I don't see how the first charge makes sense if that's the case. How does that differ from just changing the algorithm? Are they suggesting X should never be able to change it?

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 21 points 2 days ago

So it seems they are being charged for altering their own algorithm. According to this article: https://www.politico.eu/article/france-opens-criminal-probe-into-x-for-algorithm-manipulation/

Magistrate Laure Beccuau said in a statement Friday that prosecutors had launched the probe on Wednesday and were looking into whether the social media giant broke French law by altering its algorithms and fraudulently extracting data from users.

"X stands accused of the 'alteration of the functioning of an automated data processing system by an organized group'

This would be the interference charge.

'fraudulent extraction of data from an automated data processing system by an organized group.'

This would be the illegal gathering of user data charge.

Also a thing to remember is that while the US has Section 230 which protects sites like Twitter (never gonna call it X) from being responsible for what their user post, that is not the case in countries outside the US. Other countries can hold Twitter responsible for things their users post on the website.

As for my interpretations it seems the French government seems to think that Twitter has modified their algorithms to influence public opinion to affect elections or for other purposes.

[–] Aidinthel@reddthat.com 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's probably some important context the article leaves out. Maybe French law requires companies to not align with political groups or something.